Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SION COLLEGE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Overseas Students

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the level of fees for overseas students.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): Since the beginning of this year some 180 representations have been received by my right hon. and learned Friend from hon. Members, students and their organisations, academic institutions and national bodies.

Mr. Canavan: If this uneducated Tory Government are too mean to abolish full cost fees for all overseas students, will they at least give some special consideration to students from Commonwealth countries with which we have had longer and stronger links than we have with the Common Market? Is it not a piece of blatantly unfair discrimination, for example, for students from a British dependent territory such as Hong Kong to be charged full cost fees whereas students from a Portuguese overseas territory such as Macao will pay exactly the same fees as British students once Portugal joins the Common Market?

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman should have noticed that a month ago the Foreign and Commonwealth Office raised the value of Commonwealth scholarships from £34 million to £42 million. An additional £5 million is being given to Zimbabwe to enable another 800 or 900 students to come to Britain. We have helped to facilitate student movement in Europe because we are part of Europe. The hon. Gentleman should remember that we send more students to Europe than the number of European students who come here. The rest of Europe is the only area with which we have a reverse balance of trade with students.

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is real concern about this issue in many parts of the House? Will he give us the assurance that he will continue closely to monitor the full cost fees system?

Dr. Boyson: I appreciate entirely what my hon. Friend says. We are monitoring the system continually. My right

hon. and learned Friend said that we would do so. We shall continue to monitor the number of students coming to Britain and the countries from which they come.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is not it true that the number of students coming to British universities has declined and that the balance between rich and poor countries has shifted adversely for developing countries, which need education more than other countries? What will the hon. Gentleman do about it?

Dr. Boyson: There are 2,500 more students in higher education in Britain than would have been paid for under the quota set by the previous Labour Government before they fell in 1979. The figures published last week tell us that between 1975–76 and 1978–79—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) listened, it would do him some good—the number of students coming from the poorest countries to Britain fell by 18 per cent. while the Labour Government were in office.

Mr. Durant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures for my local university at Reading have held up remarkably well? There have been anxieties, but it has done extremely well for overseas students.

Dr. Boyson: I am grateful for that comment. At some universities there has been an increase in the number of overseas students. For example, there has been a 40 per cent. increase at the LSE. At other universities the numbers have decreased. Much depends on the contacts that universities in Britain have made with the rest of the world.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that the full cost fees system is a success or a failure? It seems that it is so much of a failure that it requires additional stimulus from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to relieve the burden caused by the decline in the number of applications from overseas students. Does he recognise that increases in applications from certain institutions have arisen from a capacity to buy and not from merit?

Dr. Boyson: The arrangement under the hon. Gentleman's Government—

Mr. Robert Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) was not a member of that Government.

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) was a member of the Labour Party at that time, as was the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). Under the previous Labour Government, there was an indiscriminate subsidy for every overseas student irrespective of whether he or she came from a richer country than Britain or from a rich family. We levied the fee and we are trying to help those from poorer countries and poor families.

School Meals

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the next census of school meals will take place.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): My right hon. and learned Friend has this matter under consideration.

Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that school meals have an important education and welfare function to perform? Bearing in mind the 25 per cent. reduction in the take-up of school meals during the past year and the real danger that the school meals service will collapse because of Government policies, will the hon. Gentleman provide the relevant figures more regularly and act to increase the take-up of school meals?

Mr. Macfarlane: As the House knows, that matter has been discussed on several previous occasions. Once again, Opposition Members are trying to exaggerate the situation into making the House believe that the school meals service is collapsing. That is far from the truth. The hon. Member specifically asked me when the next census of school meals would take place. I remind him and the House that the school meals census is a costly operation, which involves local education authorities and my Department in a great deal of work. However, I confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend is considering the matter.

Mr. Michael Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the county of Humberside, which has reduced its rates by 6p in the pound, more school meals have been taken following the introduction of its new system?

Mr. Macfarlane: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comment. That is a good example, and there are others elsewhere. The legislation passed last year guaranteed that local authorities had more flexibility to make the meals more attractive.

Mr. Field: As about 175,000 poor children have lost their right to free school dinners under the Government, will the Minister tell the House what steps he is taking to ensure that each of those children receives an adequate, balanced diet?

Mr. Macfarlane: That is a matter for the local authorities and the local social services. Hon. Members understand that fully. I have to remind the hon. Member once again, for about the third time this year, that two-thirds of local authorities are providing the statutory requirement, as enshrined in last year's legislation.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that, when that census has taken place, the results will show clearly that meals provided in schools have been drastically reduced because of Government policy? Is he also aware that the other Under-Secretary told us in the House that schoolchildren should even walk to school? Is it a policy to starve children?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the case. His question has no relevance to the question put down by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts).

Special Schools

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many special schools for educationally deprived children exist in the Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham metropolitan borough councils' education districts, respectively; and how many are scheduled to be closed.

Mr. Macfarlane: My right hon. and learned Friend is not aware of any such schools in Doncaster or Rotherham.

The Barnsley education authority has two centres for remedial education, both of which it proposes to close at the end of this academic year.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the cuts in education are drastically affecting the education of children with learning difficulties? Does he not realise that if those children are now educated they can perhaps take their places in the society of the future? Therefore, the cuts in education are placing the local authorities in an invidious position. There should be more such schools and not fewer.

Mr. Macfarlane: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents. I have read some of the correspondence which has been exchanged between him and the local director of education. However, the Barnsley local education authority is proposing to make alternative provision in ordinary schools for pupils who currently attend those centres. That is an important contribution, given the theme which is echoed in the legislation now going through the House.

Local Government (Transfer of Powers)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received during the past 12 months concerning the transfer to county councils of powers in respect of education which were previously held by city or district councils.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): None, Sir.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the deep anger and frustration which is felt in the city of Leicester—[Laughter]—and which is no laughing matter there, because the local authority believes that the destruction of the city's education system is caused by its transfer to a Tory-dominated county authority, which has no concept of the problems of deprivation in a city? Will he not see that those powers are transferred back so that the entire system, including nursery schools, which are in a particularly bad way can be reconstructed on an understanding basis?

Mr. Carlisle: If the local authority is as angry and frustrated as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, it is surprising that it has made no representations to me about the matter.

Mr. Latham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the electors and ratepayers of Leicestershire wish that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) would fight the battles of the future, not those of the past?

Mr. Carlisle: It is important that we should have a period of stability in the organisation of education.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that the city of Stoke-on-Trent feels the anger and frustration mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), and has referred it to the Minister? It is a city of a quarter of a million people, with a fine educational record, yet its educational services are run from the small town of Stafford. Why does not the Minister restore local democracy?

Mr. Carlisle: I can only repeat what I said to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). I


am advised that I have received no representations during the last 12 months from any city about that matter. Even if I did, I have no intention of making changes in the distribution of responsibility for education, as I believe that it is right to have a period of stability.

Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Student Loans Scheme

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is yet in a position to announce his decision on a student loans scheme to replace the existing student grants scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Boyson: My right hon. and learned Friend expects to make a statement shortly.

Mr. McQuarrie: I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend to page 3 of today's Glasgow Herald which states that the issue has already been taken—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to put his statement in the form of a question, even if he is referring to his local newspaper?

Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, but it is not my local newspaper. However, in deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I shall ask a question.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision to bring into operation a student loans scheme has been shelved and that that will bring considerable joy to students and parents?

Dr. Boyson: I was interested in my hon. Friend's comment. I have not yet read today's Glasgow Herald, as no doubt many other hon. Members have not. We shall shortly announce our decision and when that announcement is made the whole country will be able to read the announcement not only in the Glasgow Herald, but in any other paper which reports it.

Mr. Flannery: What will the Minister say in that statement? Does he not remember that many potential students in his day and mine were deterred from going on with education because they would have to pay back loans? It took me years to pay back the loan which I received just before the war. Does he not realise that that deters people from continuing their education? Will he assure us that grants will continue and that they will even be extended?

Dr. Boyson: I am sure that we are all pleased to have an intervention from the hon. Member. However, I can go no further than what I have already said. Having repaid his loan, the hon. Member must wait quietly until next week or some time very soon, when the announcement will be made.

Mr. Alexander: May I urge my hon. Friend to realise that "very soon" cannot come too soon for many students who are genuinely concerned about their future? May I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that any decision he makes will not alter the status of students who are now at university, that whatever he decides will make no difference to them during their stay there?

Dr. Boyson: When economic charges were introduced for overseas students, they did not apply to overseas students already at university. We do not intend to change the arrangements for those already at university, even if we change them for others.

Mr. Whitehead: The Minister must now be taking for granted the opposition of all Opposition parties and student organisations to those regressive proposals? [HON MEMBERS: "Not the Social Democrats."] I mean all parties represented here today. Will he consider putting in the Official Report a list of all Conservative Members and Conservative students' associations which also opposed any form of loan scheme, from those who are opposed to such schemes on the grounds of public expenditure, such as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), to those who are opposed to them on educational grounds such as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James)? Where are the Minister's supporters?

Dr. Boyson: This is not a football match, in which one has to line up one's supporters. One weighs up what is best for one's country. Inside the Conservative Party, unlike the Labour Party where the debate is less important, there has been a continuous debate. From that, a true answer has been distilled, which will shortly be announced to the country.

Schools Curriculum

Mr. Thornton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what requirement there will be upon local education authorities and schools to implement his schools curriculum document.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: None, but I shall shortly be issuing a circular which will invite authorities to formulate a policy for the curriculum in their area; to make themselves aware of current provision in their schools; and to plan future developments in the light of the guidance in our statement.

Mr. Thornton: As many parents, teachers and employers are concerned that some local education authorities may choose to ignore the guidance, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that his Department not only monitors the curriculum but also impresses on LEAs the importance of curriculum guidance?

Mr. Carlisle: I have no reason to believe that any local education authority will ignore the document, which has been widely accepted, but we shall issue a circular to draw it to their attention formally. In about two years we shall ask what change has been made.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the document was described by The Times Educational Supplement as verbiage? How does he have the gall to impose new obligations by circular or by law on LEAs only six weeks after Her Majesty's Inspectorate published a document showing that the curriculum was being significantly damaged because of Government expenditure cuts?

Mr. Carlisle: If money is short, that is all the more reason to make sure that we obtain the best possible value for it and that more thought is given to the planning of the curriculum. We make it clear in the document that we realise that the restraint on facilities will affect the speed of implementation.

Mr. William Shelton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his document is widely welcomed throughout the educational establishment and that the only regret is that it was not published by the Labour Government years ago?

Mr. Carlisle: I am aware that, apart from The Times Educational Supplement, on the whole, the document had a good press.

Computers (Teaching)

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment his Department has made of the progress of education authorities in teaching the use of computers and related subjects; and whether he is satisfied with the Inner London Education Authority in this respect.

Mr. Macfarlane: The Department receives information from Her Majesty's Inspectorate about the work of schools, colleges and local education authorities in this field, and a survey of authorities' arrangements for the provision of software in schools has been commissioned under the microelectronics education programme. So far as can be judged on the evidence available, the Inner London Education Authority has made a substantial investment in hardware, in-service training and supporting services.

Mr. Dobson: I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement of ILEA's prowess, but is that not ironic after the authority has been roundly denounced by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker), who is now the Minister responsible for computer science?

Mr. Macfarlane: It is encouraging to note that the ILEA, like a number of other local education authorities, has invested cash in the programme. I am happy to see that the ILEA chief inspector responsible for computer education is contributing to the national programme sponsored by my Department.

Mr. John MacKay: Does not the fact that yesterday the Prime Minister launched the campaign for a computer in every secondary school show how seriously we take the future educational development of microprocessors and microcomputers?

Mr. Macfarlane: Developments are extremely encouraging. The Department of Industry is sponsoring the provision of hardware, which is complementary to the Department of Education and Science programme for in-service training and software analysis.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Roy Hughes, Question No. 8.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I missed an Opposition Front Bench speaker, but there is no prescriptive right for Front Bench Members to be called, any more than there is for Back Bench Members. However, it is a "maiden" Front Bench question for the hon. Member.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the cost of the in-service training programme?

Mr. Macfarlane: So far, my Department has spent just under £1 million on 34 projects. About one third have

come from 36 local authorities. We are happy to say that more background is now being provided by the Council for Education Technology, which is beginning to mount a series of six-week courses. In the past 12 months, 800 teachers have been through the programme.

Expenditure Cuts

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consider convening a conference of local education authorities to consider the effect of expenditure cuts on education.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I have regular meetings with the local authority associations at which we discuss, among other things, the effect of the Government's expenditure plans on the education service.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Secretary of State at last appreciate the serious deterioration in education, which is confirmed by the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate? Does he accept that if he called a conference of local education authorities he would at least get a first-hand, blow-by-blow appraisal of the situation?

Mr. Carlisle: The report was fully debated recently in the House. If the hon. Gentleman wants a re-run of that debate, I shall be happy to take part at any time. I visit many schools, and am fully aware of the position throughout the country. I have never pretended that it is easy to reduce expenditure, but I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the effect of the cuts.

Mr. Freud: When the Secretary of State next meets LEAs, will he tell them that he will not implement contentious LEA decisions in the months before the county council elections?

Mr. Carlisle: It would not be right to hold back departmental decisions just because an election is pending, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Dickens: Since local government officers are past masters at convening conferences at seaside resorts at the taxpayers' and ratepayers' expense, will the Secretary of State resist the temptation to convene yet another conference?

Mr. Carlisle: When I meet local education authorities it is usually at Elizabeth House and not at a nice seaside resort.

Primary Schools (Costs)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in England in each of the past three years, at constant prices.

Dr. Boyson: Net recurrent expenditure at 1980 survey prices for children of primary school age was £375 in 1977–78, £406 in 1978–79 and £422 in 1979–80.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if there is a connection between standards and the amount spent on education, there is no reason why standards should have fallen in the past three years but strong reasons why they should have risen?

Dr. Boyson: That is true. The intention is to increase expenditure for each child of primary school age to £427


this year and to £432 in 1983–4. As primary school expenditure per child has increased by 64 per cent. in 20 years, we should expect good standards.

Mr. Allen McKay: As lack of finance has caused primary schools to close in my constituency of Penistone, will the Minister meet parents to discuss the problem?

Dr. Boyson: I imagine that the fall in the birth rate has caused the closures. If schools were full, they would not close. If the hon. Gentleman writes to us, we shall be glad to meet a delegation.

Village Schools

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue a circular to local education authorities advising them on methods of encouraging the preservation of village schools in rural communities.

Mr. Macfarlane: My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to issue such a circular. He recognises the contribution to village life which small rural schools can make, but there are educational and economic arguments for closing schools in some areas as pupil numbers fall. Whether to maintain a school or take it out of use must in the first instance be decided by local education authorities in the light of local circumstances.

Mr. Baker: Does my hon. Friend accept that many people in my constituency and in rural areas elsewhere will be very disappointed by that reply? Does he recognise the important educational and community advantages of village schools? Will he reconsider his decision and see what help he can give to parent-teacher associations to encourage the retention of village schools?

Mr. Macfarlane: As my hon. Friend knows, a tremendous change is taking place. I certainly understand what the closure of village schools has meant in many communities, but the educational and economic arguments are important. My right hon. and learned Friend intends shortly to issue a circular on falling rolls and surplus places and the educational and financial factors which must be considered in the appraisal.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: For how many village schools in rural communities has the Secretary of State since he took office approved proposals for cessation of maintenance without replacement by local education authorities?

Mr. Macfarlane: If the hon. Gentleman tables a question I shall see that it is answered.

Mr. Watson: Will my hon. Friend dispel once and for all the notion that children at small rural primary schools are suffering in some way from educational disadvantage?

Mr. Macfarlane: I think that this may well apply in many schools in some areas. We are looking at those issues and problems in my Department's appraisal in conjunction with HMI and local authorities, and it will remain part of the appraisal of falling rolls.

Secondary Education (Guidance)

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give official guidance to local education authorities on methods they could use in determining whether a change from a system of schools for

11 to 18-year-olds, schools with sixth forms to schools for 11 to 16-year-olds and sixth form colleges will save or cost local ratepayers money.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Yes, Sir. The Department has commissioned management consultants to prepare a method of costing. This will be of use to local education authorities which are reviewing their provision for 16 to 19-year-olds as the joint Government and local authority review recommended.

Dr. Mawhinney: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that information. Does he agree that it is not possible to place a cost upon the disruption caused by replacing schools for 11 to 18-year-olds which are doing a fine job with schools for 11 to 16-year-olds and sixth form colleges?

Mr. Carlisle: I assure my hon. Friend that, as the report made clear, we believe that there is still room for the viable school for 11 to 18-year-olds with its own individual sixth form.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is most unfair for a local authority, having offered a child at age 11-plus a place at a school for 11 to 18-year-olds, to begin to reorganise the system before that child has completed his education?

Mr. Carlisle: If one thinks about that for a moment, it means that one could never organise anything because in any year there are bound to be some children who were in the school the previous year. It is necessary for local authorities to look at their provision for 16 to 19-year-olds because the effect of falling rolls would otherwise mean non-viable classes in many small schools.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the proposal by Wiltshire county council to reorganise secondary education in Swindon on the basis of an age range of 11 to 16 and a sixth form college has caused uproar in the area because people believe that it is educationally non-viable and will be bad for the children? As he must have received representations about this, will he ensure that more consultation takes place? Will he come to Swindon to discuss the matter with the people there?

Mr. Carlisle: I have not seen the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he cares to make representations to me about at they will certainly be borne in mind as part of the Department's review of any individual application to change the nature of a school.

Music Tuition

Mr. Brinton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he is now able to give to local education authorities on the continued provision of instrumental music tuition, both in and out of school.

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has yet reached any conclusions about the Forbes judgment on the matter of charging for music lessons by the Hereford and Worcester local education authority.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Local education authorities that now charge for instrumental music tuition will need to examine the terms of the judgment, in consultation with


their legal advisers. I am considering whether the judgment calls for action on the part of Government, but I have no current proposals for legislation.

Mr. Brinton: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the recent case to which he referred, brought with the backing of the National Union of Teachers, has gravely imperilled music teaching in many schools? Will he confirm once again that he is urgently seeking to ascertain whether legislation is necessary so that parents may voluntarily pay part or the whole of fees for instrumental tuition?

Mr. Carlisle: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I think that the only effect of that case is to put at risk a great deal of instrumental teaching in schools. There is nothing new in charging for such teaching. More than 40 local education authorities do so at present. Clearly, they will now have to review the provision that they make. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I am considering what guidance and help I might give. As I have said, however, at the moment I have no proposals to bring immediate legislation before the House.

Mr. Miller: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Hereford and Worcester local education authority, in whose area the case arose, is certainly of the view that amendment to the legislation is necessary to permit continuation of the practice of charging, which enabled the authority to provide new instruments for the purpose as well as employing peripatetic music teachers?

Mr. Carlisle: I am aware that that view has been expressed by many people. I ask my hon. Friend to accept that one must consider very carefully before deciding to change the law in this area. The matter needs a great deal of thought, which we are giving to it.

Mr. Flannery: Before the Minister uses that judgment in the way that he proposes, will he realise that the man who brought the case has since accused the authorities of cutting even more deeply than previously? Is he aware that the judgment will be used to curtail music teaching by reactionary authorities all over the place which would cut deeper and deeper in any case whether the judgment existed or not?

Mr. Carlisle: I am not using that judgment in any way. In many parts of this country it has been normal, accepted practice to make a charge for individual instrumental tuition. I therefore confirm that the effect of the judgment is that many of those local education authorities are now reviewing their practice to see whether they can continue the service.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the top priority, as recommended by the Gulbenkian report, should be to help the very limited number of specialist music schools, of which the Purcell school at Harrow-on-the-Hill is one example, because it is at those schools that the orchestras and musicians of the future will develop?

Mr. Carlisle: As my hon. Friend knows, we have recently announced that we are grant-aiding places in the three major music schools in this country which were not grant-aided under the previous proposals.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that music and musical tuition standards in this country are jeopardised far more by the cuts and the loss

of peripatetic teachers as well as other music teachers than by any judgment in the Jones case? Does he agree with me and many others who believe that authorities making charges for music lessons inside schools, on the curriculum, whether in music theory or instrumental music, are breaking section 53 of the Education Act 1944? Does he now intend to bring before the House a new miscellaneous provisions Bill to change the law in a way which would be acceptable to Tories but utterly abominable to anyone who cares about music and music tuition in this country?

Mr. Carlisle: If local education authorities are providing music tuition which is part of the curriculum in the school in circumstances similar to those obtaining in the Hereford and Worcester case, clearly the judgment of the court applies. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that judgment concerned the provision of musical tuition in the particular circumstances of that case. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I repeat that I have no current proposals for introducing legislation, but I am reviewing the whole situation. One has to accept that, if an authority was attempting to retain the service and to obtain some of the income through a modest charge, that has now been prevented and therefore the service becomes at risk.

Universities (Scientific Research)

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied that basic scientific research in universities will not be diminished as a result of his proposals to reduce the funds allocated to the University Grants Committee.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The detailed implications of the Government's expenditure plans on all aspects of university activities, including basic science research, are under discussion with the University Grants Committee.

Sir David Price: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it will be extremely difficult to maintain the momentum of scientific research in our universities without some degree of earmarking of grants by the University Grants Committee?

Mr. Carlisle: A working party chaired jointly by the UGC and the advisory board for the Science Research Council is examining the current arrangement for the dual funding of research. I do not think that I can add to that at this stage.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State aware that, for example, while the physics department of the University of Hull is doing extremely distinguished work on lasers and the treatment of pre-malignant cervical cancer, it has not been able to appoint a new member of staff since 1968? Is not there a problem in that in many science departments whole groups of lecturers, senior lecturers and professors are ageing together? Should not something be done about getting a proper age structure in university science departments?

Mr. Carlisle: There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman has said. I cannot comment on the individual case. A lot of people were taken on by the universities at a particular time, and the age structure of those teaching in universities is, therefore, not ideal. It means that vacancies for new teachers in universities are difficult to come by.

Mr. Ancram: I accept the general need for reductions, but is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the genuine concern in universities, such as my local one in Edinburgh, that the speed at which the reductions are required will not allow for sensible changes to be made but will force quick savings that will be at the expense of departments such as the technical and scientific ones that we need?

Mr. Carlisle: I am aware that there is concern in the universities about the need to make savings. The need exists, but I am reviewing with the UGC the details of the proposals.

Dr. Bray: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that already the availability of equipment, research assistants and general support for research is so far below the standards that able researchers can get in the United States that it is becoming an increasingly great sacrifice for young scientists to remain in this country?

Mr. Carlisle: We have made no reductions in expenditure by the research councils.

SMP Mathematics and Nuffield Physics

Mr. John MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence he has as to the acceptability of SMP mathematics and Nuffield physics as qualifications for the engineering industry as compared with traditional mathematics and traditional physics.

Mr. Macfarlane: My right hon. and learned Friend is not aware of any evidence that any one A-level mathematics or physics course consistently produces better or worse prepared candidates for careers in engineering; nor is he aware of any systematic study of the preferences of the engineering industry.

Mr. MacKay: Will my hon. Friend undertake to see whether the engineering industry has any reservations about modern mathematics or physics courses? Is he aware that if it does that would have most serious implications for our schools which should consider their mathematics and physics syllabuses with a view to the use that future students of engineering and physics might make of them?

Mr. Macfarlane: That is an important point. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes that the Cockcroft committee will shortly have some advice to offer on the question of mathematics syllabuses. We are certainly aware that some employers have expressed a preference for more traditional courses, but I hope that the House will be pleased to hear that this is part of a regular scrutiny of the GCE syllabus, and so far neither has given rise to concern about standards of acceptability by engineering companies and universities.

Expenditure Cuts (Universities)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the expenditure cuts to be made in respect of the universities.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I made an announcement to the House on 13 March about the recurrent grant for universities for the academic year 1981–82.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a great deal of alarm and despondency

within the universities as a direct result of the proposals in the White Paper? Does he realise that evidence given last week to the Public Accounts Committee on this matter indicated that if those proposals were implemented immediately there would be at least 3,000 redundancies among the academics, and that the redundancy payments that those 3,000 would claim would be far more than the salaries they would expect to be paid if they were kept on?

Mr. Carlisle: We are discussing these matters with the UGC, but I must repeat that the proposals in the White Paper for 1981–82 constituted a reduction of 3 per cent. in the fundings of universities. That is essential if we are to retain control over public expenditure.

Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the basic problem is that we have too many universities? What the country really needs is more students with national certificates and fewer graduates, some of whose courses are half-baked.

Mr. Carlisle: There is need to rationalise the number of courses being provided by all the various universities and colleges of higher education, and that is what we are doing.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall attend the annual dinner of the Ross McWhirter Foundation.

Mr. Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend, as a London Member, had time to study the declared intention of the London Labour Party to increase the rates of every household in London by £1 per week if it is returned to power in the Greater London Council? Does not that demonstrate Labour's disregard for the interests of ratepayers?

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that should Labour unfortunately be returned to power in the GLC that would mean, judging from the Labour Party's statements, a policy of higher spending, higher rates and intolerable new burdens on industry and the commercial enterprises upon which London relies for jobs. Many of those increases would be passed on in higher prices. That would be altogether a calamity. It would be far better to vote for good housekeeping of the kind that we shall give.

Mr. Foot: Will the Prime Minister tell us to what extent rents and rates in London have increased during the period of her Government? Will she find time in her busy schedule today to meet the TUC representatives from the Northern region to discuss the unemployment which has nearly doubled in that region since May 1979?

The Prime Minister: Over the past four years rates under the GLC have risen less than inflation. On rents, I assume that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to perpetuate the circumstance under which the income from that source was less than half the cost of maintaining local council housing. On the latter part of the right hon.


Gentleman's question, he knows that I see individual Members if they have a problem about a particular closure, but I do not see general deputations.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider the matter? Throughout this week the House will be lobbied by people who will be making representations about rising unemployment all over the country. Unemployment in the Northern region is as bad as anywhere. Will she therefore meet some of these people during the week? What does the right hon. Lady have to say about the fact that company failures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I know that Conservative Members are not interested in this aspect, but in the first half of this year company failures have been at a record high—51 per cent. higher than a year ago. When will the right hon. Lady do something about that?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I should say that I have some highly competent right hon. Friends who will, if need be, receive those deputations. As regards the latter part of his question, there are a number of bankruptcies. That is a measure of the lack of competitiveness and of the overmanning that the Government have had to deal with.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the reports to the effect that the International Monetary Fund is giving the seal of approval to the £ sterling and allowing it to be used for loans to countries that are in depressed circumstances? As the pound has for too long been the sick currency of Europe, is this not one of the Government's proudest achievements?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that sterling has once again received the blessing of the IMF. I am also happy to observe that we have reduced our overseas debt in relation to our trade to the lowest level since the war.

Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Institute of Careers Officers announced today that 1 million teenagers would be seeking jobs this year and that this year promised to be the worst year ever? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Government industrial Civil Service, for which she is responsible, is cutting apprentice training? How on earth can private industry increase its intake of apprentices when the Government are setting such a bad example?

The Prime Minister: Last year, this year and next year are years that involve a particularly large number of school leavers, because of the bulge in the birth rate that occurred some years ago. As a result, more school leavers than usual will be seeking jobs. That is one reason why we have increased the facilities of the youth opportunities programme. We shall do everything we can to increase training facilities.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister pause to reflect on the cowardly nature of the Government's incomes policy and, in particular, on the despicable way that the Government are treating their own staff, the Civil Service? Will she compare the Government's attitude towards the Civil Service claim with their attitude towards the miners'

claim, when the white flag was hoisted before battle had even begun. Similar settlements have been made in other areas. In reality, has not the Iron Lady got feet of clay?

The Prime Minister: I do not regard a 50 per cent. increase in pay this year compared with two years ago, and a further offer of 7 per cent.—which will lead to an increase of 11 per cent. over last year's pay because of the way in which staging takes effect—together with job security and inflation-proof pensions as bad treatment. Many people would like to have that deal.

Mr. Brotherton: Will my right hon. Friend give further thought today to the Civil Service? Is she aware that there is widespread concern at her Government's failure to reduce significantly the numbers of those employed in the Civil Service? Furthermore, is she aware that any capitulation on the 7 per cent. offer will be regarded with horror by the vast majority of the population?

The Prime Minister: The numbers in the Civil Service have dropped by about 35,000 and will continue to drop in accordance with plans. The offer of 7 per cent. has been made although there is a 6 per cent. cash limit. That is reasonable both in terms of those who work for the Government and in terms of past pay increases. In addition, it is reasonable in terms of what people can afford.

Mr. Dixon: As the right hon. Lady will not meet the leaders of the deputation from the Northern region, will she at least realise that they are complaining about the high level of unemployment? Is she aware that in comparison with other regions in England, Scotland and Wales the Northern region has the highest percentage of unemployment? Is she further aware that, compared with other regions, it has the second lowest number of vacancies? Every vacancy is being chased by 50 men and women as a result of the Government's policy. What message has the right hon. Lady got for those people from the Northern region?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that considerable help is given to the regions in the form of help to the nationalised industries and through regional aid. That will continue to be our policy.

Mr. Hal Miller: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the report today to the effect that the fall in the level of sterling has led to an increase in industry's costs?

The Prime Minister: I have not noticed the report. However, it means that all raw materials or semi-manufactured goods that are invoiced in sterling will increase in price.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if she will state her official engagements for 7 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not unfair to blame Labour-controlled councils for vast rent and rate increases that have been caused by the Government? Should not the Government refrain from shooting the pianist for being compelled to play a rotten tune that has been composed by the right hon. Lady and her Government?

The Prime Minister: That is just not so. On average, Labour-controlled councils have increased rates far more


than Conservative-controlled councils. That is due to their attitude toward public expenditure. Labour councillors think that they know how to spend the money better than ratepayers do.

Sir William Elliott: Given the questions that Opposition Members have asked about the North-East, is my right hon. Friend aware that I am completely willing to meet leaders of the TUC from the North-East? However, they do not appear to have arrived. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that when they arrive I shall point out the recent figures that have been produced by the English Industrial Estates Corporation, which suggest that many more factories are opening in our region than are closing?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I am sure that he will convey that news to the deputation, should it arrive to hear it.

Mr. Spriggs: is the Prime Minister aware that in Merseyside, which has one of the highest levels of unemployment, the Prescot Cable Company is importing cable from Taiwan and thereby importing unemployment into the country? Will she call for a full investigation and report to the House explaining why Taiwan is allowed to export unemployment to the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are a lot of jobs in exports. If we were to adopt a completely protectionist attitude, unemployment would be even higher than it is now.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's proper interest in matters ecclestiastical, will she spare a moment today to refute the rumour that ministerial pressure is being excercised to prevent the introduction of a Bill to preserve the Book of Common Prayer for those who wish to continue to use it in their Anglican worship?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend must wait until permission is sought to introduce the Bill. I think that he will understand when I say that he must not be surprised if many of my right hon. Friends and some of my hon. Friends feel that they must constitutionally support the Synod.

Q.4 Mr. Flannery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 7 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Flannery: Will the right hon. Lady once again turn her mind to unemployment? Does she realise that by tomorrow there will have been five lobbies of Parliament? I venture to guess that none of those involved is worrying about the Book of Common Prayer. Does she realise—[Interruption.] If the public school hooligans would listen they might realise that those people witness factory closures every day. Does the right hon. Lady realise that, where industry was thriving, there are now more than 3 million unemployed? Does not she accept that her policy is a monumental failure? When will she change it and do something about the massive amount of unemployment that is at virtually everyone 's door?

The Prime Minister: The best way of protecting jobs is to produce goods at a competitive price that those at home and abroad will buy. There is no substitute for that. As long as goods are uncompetitive or not of a type that people will buy out of their pay packets, there will be factory closures.

Mr. Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Scotland Labour-controlled district councils on average have raised their rates by more than 40 per cent., while Conservative and independent local authorities on average have increased their rates by only 11 per cent.? Does that not indicate that the increasing burden of rates is more a function of the way that local authorities are managed than of any action by Her Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I totally agree. The fact is that Labour councils are big spenders of other people's money.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Prime Minister accept that her insistence on competition opens the possibility of extinction? How long will she and her Government persist in their attitude to imports—until British industry has been so undermined that it can never recover? Does not she accept that technological change throughout the world now makes that a real possibility?

The Prime Minister: Those nations which compete most effectively and have concentrated more on productivity than on pay have the highest levels of prosperity.

References to Members

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I have not had the opportunity of giving you notice of the question, but you will be aware that we have always had an understanding in both Houses that we do not attack Members of either House in a disparaging way.
Knowing that you, Mr. Speaker, like many hon. Members—not myself—are a teetotaller, I think that you might be a little offended to know that a former Member of this House, now in another place, has made a slighting, wounding attack upon a number of right hon. and hon. Members who are teetotallers. He has tried to assert that there is almost perpetual drunkeness in one Bar. The former Member to whom I refer is Eric Lubbock, now Lord Avebury. When he was called to order he corrected himself and included the other House as well.
You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that a few Members have a drink occasionally, but no one is ever drunk in this place, because that is against the rules. We know that you are a life-long total abstainer and you would never allow us to break the rules. It was wrong for the Member of another place to say what he did, when we all know that what he said is not true.

Mr. Speaker: I quite understand that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) did not have the opportunity to inform me that he would raise his point of order. We do our best in both Houses to observe the courtesies about each other and to each other.
I believe that the remarks, which I read with some interest, were made by a Member of another place, but were not made in another place but outside. In this country all sorts of things are said that we do not like. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not inviting him to do it, but a question of privilege may be raised with me in private. It would be an exceedingly delicate matter. The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, in that all my predecessors have ruled that no right hon. or hon. Member is ever too much under the influence of drink.

Mr. Lewis: In view of your last sentence, Mr. Speaker, I thank you and say that you have well made the point.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of the Reorganisation of the National Health Service in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. R/3298/78, concerning divisions of public limited companies (scissions), be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Co-ownership of Flats

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give powers to residents of flats in private ownership in purpose-built blocks and in certain conversions jointly to purchase the premises of which their flats are part; to specify the procedures to be adopted; to amend the Housing Act 1980 in respect of the powers of local authorities to acquire land in certain circumstances for the purpose of its disposal to residents of flats built thereon acting as joint purchasers; to make consequential provisions as to the management and upkeep of premises so purchased; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide a convenient statutory means by which the tenants of blocks of flats can come together to purchase their landlord's interest at a fair valuation. It is natural justice that residents of flats in private ownership should have similar rights to those now enjoyed by tenants of houses on long leases and by tenants in council flats. For tenants in privately owned premises, Parliament has already given security of tenure and a measure of control over rents.
Unfortunately, inflation is making those concessions of little value to people in retirement, or those who are unable to keep pace with changes in money values. If they owned their houses they would have an asset that would protect them to a considerable extent against inflation, but in private ownership a tenant who has to surrender the lease of his flat can take nothing out with which to procure other accommodation.
That is a serious social problem for many people, including those who may have thought themselves relatively well-to-do. When they can no longer keep pace with the rise in rents, service charges and rates and have to seek other accommodation, they find that they have nothing to sell with which to procure themselves another home. They often fall to supplementary benefit level to procure accommodation.
There are a number of other reasons why Parliament should act now. One is the continuing drift of the electorate out of inner London. I calculate that if the decline continues at the rate at which it has been proceeding for the past three or five years, one-third of the electorate of inner London will have moved out over the next 10 years. That is not just a problem for inner London Members; it is of concern to the whole country.
Unhappily, we are also seeing more and more bitter disputes over service charges. Although the Department sought to improve the rights of tenants in disputes over service charges in their legislation last year, there are still many disputes and a great deal of bad blood and unhappiness.
Once again, we are seeing the creeping hotels threat. Landlords seek by various means—some of them not at all clean—to evict long-stay tenants from blocks of flats so that the character of the buildings can be changed and they can be turned into flats for short-term letting to overseas visitors, sometimes only for a few days at a time.
Perhaps the most important factor that needs the attention of the Department is the deterioration of many of the older mansion blocks, and even some of the postwar blocks, where the landlords do not have the inclination—or perhaps do not have the means—to keep their properties up to an acceptable standard. The central London blocks are part of our heritage. It is foolish to


allow the deterioration of those blocks to continue because we cannot solve the problems of the relationships between the landlords and the tenants.
Where will the money come from to maintain the blocks in a decent condition? Local authorities cannot be expected to provide an endless source of grants for conversion or improvement of blocks of flats. In many cases the landlord cannot or will not do it. Only the tenants can be expected to find the money, but they will not do it and will resist to the end while they think that the money they are spending on the improvement or maintenance of their blocks is accruing to a landlord for whom they have no time. They will not find the necessary money unless they have a permanent stake in the block. It is a matter of human nature, which the Department of the Environment should understand.
Perhaps the most important element in the Bill is valuation. I do not suggest that there should be any element of expropriation. I should like the valuation to be scrupulously fair, so that if a landlord is required to sell his property to his tenants he suffers nothing except the necessity to reshuffle his portfolio of assets.
I therefore propose that the Bill should specify that the owner should receive half the vacant possession value. I believe that on that basis the majority of owners would think that they had had a fair deal and would be quite willing to sell. In the terms of valuation we should recognise that having conferred security of tenure on the tenants we must not let that right be withdrawn again through inflation. We meant the tenants to have a real asset when we gave them security, and that asset must be taken into account when the valuation is made.
Tenants seeking to acquire their properties should be required to form themselves into a company in order to manage the block. Partnership schemes and loose associations would not be appropriate, because things could go badly wrong after the property had been bought and we would not succeed in maintaining the quality of the block if the tenants, having bought it, fell out among themselves.
The operations of a small company, however, are well understood in this country. The people concerned would know that they had to produce proper accounts and hold regular meetings, and that shareholders would have their rights. I should like to include in the Bill a model form of memorandum and articles for tenants' associations seeking to form companies to acquire their mansion blocks. That may be of use even if the Bill does not go through.
We should also specify that there should be no windfall capital gains. I suggest that the profit on a flat that falls vacant in the early years should accrue to the company or be shared between the tenant leaving the flat and the company. Otherwise, we should give tenants an incentive to sell in order to secure their vacant possession value, and that would unsettle the very people whom the Bill is intended to provide with greater security of tenure.
The types of property in which tenants would have the right contained in the Bill must be clearly specified. I propose that they should be purpose-built blocks or conversions consisting of not less than four fully self-contained flats. There should be no question of single flats or parts of premises in owner-occupation being eligible for inclusion in co-owenership schemes.
I should also like to include in the Bill something about the powers of local authorities. A tantalising section in the Housing Act 1980 confers on local authorities the power to use compulsory purchase orders to acquire land for immediate resale for the provision of housing accommodation.
I interpret that section to mean that local authorities may acquire land with mansion blocks or flats already standing on it; but there could be some doubt about that interpretation and I should like to clarify the section by saying that CPOs may be used by local authorities to acquire properties for immediate sale to a properly constituted tenants' association where they are satisfied that the property is deteriorating because of the relationship between the tenants and the landlord, or where they find that it is gradually being withdrawn from regular residential occupation. The local authority should then have the right to intervene, and I hope that the Department would recognise the need and confirm the CPO.
I recognise that the problem that I am seeking to deal with in the Bill is not a vital one in the majority of constituencies, because mansion blocks are a feature of inner London and of certain other areas only; but it is a matter of great significance to tens of thousands of people in London who are anxious about the future of their homes. I therefore hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Nicholas Scott, Mr. William Shelton, Mr. Martin Stevens and Mr. John Wheeler.

CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to give powers to residents of flats in private ownership in purpose-built blocks and in certain conversions jointly to purchase the premises of which their flats are part; and to specify the procedures to be adopted; to amend the Housing Act 1980 in respect of the powers of local authorities to acquire land in certain circumstances for the purpose of its disposal to residents of flats built thereon acting as joint purchasers; to make consequential provisions as to the management and upkeep of premises so purchased; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed [Bill 113].

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Youth Unemployment

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I remind the House that this is an abbreviated debate. I hope that hon. Members who are called to speak will remember their colleagues.

Mr. John Grant: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for creating unprecedented youth unemployment, continuing anxiety to school leavers and their parents and frustration to educationists and for wasting the human resources vital to the regeneration of the economy.
A debate centring on the employment problems of young people is long overdue. I say that not because of a lack of concern for older people who are out of work. Indeed, I hope that in the months ahead we shall be able to deal with the employment problems of other disadvantaged groups, including the disabled, ethnic minorities, the long-term unemployed, and women. Of course, all those groups contain young people who are directly relevant to the debate. I hope to refer to some of their special difficulties.
Hundreds of thousands of young people, especially school leavers, face the traumatic experience of constant rejection for jobs at a time when they are at their most immature and most emotionally unstable. The effect on them is immeasurable, but it is no exaggeration to say that many will carry the scars of that bitter experience throughout their lives, and we shall all have to bear our share of the social strain.
For all the brave words that we hear, the Government's efforts are increasingly exposed as utterly inadequate to deal with the problems that Government policies have done so much to create. The message that Ministers offer to our young people is a message not of hope but of despair and despondency.
The Secretary of State for Employment wrings his hands regularly once a month when the unemployment figures are announced. He describes the situation as appalling, or finds another unhappy adjective or phrase. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cannot be with us. He was kind enough to tell us that he has had to go overseas on Government business. We understand that, but it is a great pity that he is not here, because he needs to be held as personally accountable as possible.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will offer us more than the pious prayers that we get so often from the Secretary of State. If the hon. and learned Gentleman can be positive I shall be delighted, though I shall also be astonished, because whatever the wishes of the Secretary of State and his Ministers, and however much they talk of their good intentions, they share collective responsibility in a Government who are governing not with guts but with guilt. The Government know what they are doing to the country but they lack the guts to own up and to take the right sort of action. The Secretary of State is unable to put

his money where his mouth is, because the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not permit him to do so.
I shall concentrate mainly on the youth opportunities programme. Time and again the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister boast of the extra cash that they are pouring in to the Manpower Services Commission's special programmes, and particularly into the YOP. The amendment refers to the programme and the Prime Minister mentioned it at Question Time earlier.
The Secretary of State told us that he has doubled the number of YOP places this year, speeded up the offer of places and put a new emphasis on quality training for work. He added that "as resources permit" the Government would work towards the point where every 16 and 17-year-old not in education or a job would be assured of vocational preparation up to his or her eighteenth birthday. He was talking about all youngsters and not just the unemployed. That was a worthy objective.
The Manpower Services Commission will agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Its chairman has said publicly very much the same thing. The TUC will agree with him. It has called for that kind of approach. So will the CBI. Part of its six-point plan is to relieve unemployment and to increase training, as shown in the recently published document "The Will to Win". I see that even the Duke of Edinburgh made the same point yesterday. They will all back him. However, most of those to whom I refer also agreed about the Budget. That is where the major obstacle to implementing these ideas lies. It lies in the Government's economic strategy—if it can still be called a strategy.
The Secretary of State for Employment and his Ministers have not a clue about how or when they can hit their target. Will resources permit them to do so this year, next year, some time, never? While they fiddle and fail to persuade their colleagues there is a grave danger that the existing youth opportunities programme will come to grief.
I am sure that a number of my hon. Friends will want to make specific points about the programme. The most explicit version of the fears about YOP are contained in the recent Youth Aid review. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) was chairman of the working group that drew up that valuable document. It stresses the growing concern over job substitution and the abuse of the scheme by some employers. About 30 per cent. of the places are now reckoned to come into that category. This has caused considerable and understandable anxiety among trade unionists.
The review emphasises, as does the Manpower Services Commission, the inadequate level of the current allowance. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on reports of Government plans for a flat rate allowance for all young people aged 16 to 19. I hope that he will say something about the potential effect, if such a proposition were carried through, on employment schemes such as YOP, and the reported conflict within the Government and the opposition of the Secretary of State to that course of action. The review points to an increasing inability to find jobs for YOP trainees when they have passed through the scheme. We are talking about real jobs. Conservative Members used to sneer and ask "Where are the real jobs?" when referring to the youth opportunities programme. That sort of remark is no longer heard from the Conservative Benches.
The review also underlines the difficulty for employers in making work experience places available. That is hardly surprising when one considers the record number of bankruptcies in the private sector and the vicious squeeze on public sector employment. All these matters are vital to the continued credibility of the scheme. The Opposition certainly want it to remain credible.
The biggest difficulty is the sheer weight of numbers which the youth opportunities programme is now expected to carry. Its original purpose is being undermined. The jam is being spread more thinly. More young people are now taught how to compete against each other for fewer jobs. That cannot be the right approach. It is no wonder that Youth aid called its report "Quality or collapse". That was not a question; it was a statement, or a demand.
Rising unemployment now threatens to swamp the expansion of YOP which was announced by the Secretary of State in November with such gusto. There is a widespread belief that we are heading for the worst ever year for teenage unemployment. Within the Manpower Services Commission there is now a belief that funding for 440,000 places this year will be decidedly inadequate and that it may need to find at least another 50,000 places without even taking account of the effect of the Budget on unemployment.
Two weeks ago The Times Educational Supplement reported:
Manpower Services Commission officials fear that the programme may have to cope with close to 500,000 youngsters. The commission has been given enough money to provide for a maximum of 440,000 entrants in the financial year which begins next month. But its area boards and regional directors say that they need room for at least another 43,000 in the light of the latest unemployment trends. The commission's senior officials have told its special programmes board that even that may be a conservative estimate".
Our young people today face a bleak future. In disaster areas such as Merseyside and the North-East—it would be possible to mention others—most youngsters leaving school now expect to go on the dole. Even in once prosperous areas like the West Midlands the problem is acute. In inner London, at least 10 school leavers are chasing every job, three times the comparable figure a year ago.
I was talking last week to a major employer in the City. He told me that his firm's labour turnover was virtually nil, because everyone was hanging on to his job and that this meant that the firm would take on very few young people, including graduates, in the autumn, contrary to usual practice. The firm would be taking 50 compared with a normal intake of 350. The situation will get far worse. In my borough of Islington one-fifth of manufacturing jobs have been lost in a year. It is no wonder that the school leaver programme has grown sevenfold in a year.
It is the admission of a desperate situation for the Government to turn to military training, albeit voluntary, as an answer. Irrespective of the merits or the demerits of the idea, it is likely, if pursued, to damage the credibility of the YOP, certainly if the MSC is involved. It can only be a drop in the ocean and can do nothing to tackle the real problems faced by young people.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I agree with my hon. Friend; it is a drop in the ocean. However, the Minister, speaking in an Adjournment debate a few days ago, suggested that this was a pilot scheme. I suggest, therefore, that if the Government get away with this

proposal it will be a matter not of 1,000 but of 100,000 young men involved in what could become compulsory military service.

Mr. Grant: I understand my hon. Friend's point. It is a matter that we shall have to watch and examine with care. I hope that before any proposal is implemented it will be brought before the House for careful scrutiny.
The Manpower Services Commission is rightly anxious to introduce short-term changes to improve the quality of youth opportunity training. Those changes should be supported, but there are deeper implications. The lasting solution, as our motion suggests, lies in the regeneration of the British economy and in a change of course by this hidebound Government. If, however, the Prime Minister continues to have her way, one feels that young people will grow old in the dole queues. She will still be saying that she has got it all right. Even with a different Prime Minister and a different Government, which we need, a changed approach to the youth opportunities programme will be required. It has to be built on to produce, preferably, a full-scale 12 month programme of vocational preparation and further education for all 16 to 18-year-olds who want to take it. Much less is done in this country than in other Western industrialised nations. We have every reason to do far more.
There are other important matters with which I can deal only briefly. The acute cutback in apprentice training is one such issue. Apprentices are being laid off by some firms. Other firms which have taken on apprentices in the past are not now doing so. As a consequence, the skill shortages of the future are being ensured. The Manpower Services Commission warned the Government recently that the recession threatens a collapse of this provision in some areas. It shows how short-sighted the Government have become if that can happen. It is time for the Government to set out their views. We should know what the Government intend to do to try to relieve the situation.
A whole range of problems for young people arise from the Employment and Training Bill; I do not intend to dwell on them. That piece of dogmatic nonsense is being taken apart by my right hon. and hon. Friends in Committee. I wish, however, to refer to the great difficulties for physically and mentally handicapped school leavers. All the voluntary bodies involved with these youngsters express great concern. They believe that these young people face a critical situation. I hope that the Minister will explain the Government's plans for coping with the problem.
A specific area to which I want to refer is unemployment among young blacks, which is growing faster than unemployment generally. These young people, like the disabled, are particularly vulnerable. There is no doubt that they face discrimination in the job market. The Commission for Racial Equality believes that there is a serious upward trend in this respect. It is perhaps inevitable with high unemployment. These young people have other disadvantages. Yet there have been no worthwhile Government initiatives in this area since the general election.
Last July the Commission for Racial Equality put forward specific proposals. It suggested more preparatory courses for youngsters with a poor knowledge of English and said that special efforts should be made, particularly in regions with high ethnic minority communities, to


promote black self-help groups. It made other similar proposals. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether progress has been made in that connection.
The code of practice on discrimination in employment has been kicking around for months. All that it needs is ministerial approval, but that is being denied. It is time that the House knew when the code of practice is to be made available. There seems to be a dangerous complacency among Ministers in what is a potentially volatile if not explosive sphere. A clear Government lead and commitment are needed.
We are letting our young people down. I do not pretend that the answers are easy, but I charge the Government with failing miserably to measure up to the size of the problem.
The chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, Sir Richard O'Brien, summed up the commission's aims and objectives after its meeting on 25 March. He said:
This is a critical time for training. Our traditional approach is inadequate and faces dislocation and failure. The needs of the 1980s are very different from those of the past. The Commission has spelled out the objectives we must pursue. We now need commitment to achieving them and that means a commitment to ensuring that we have effective machinery and adequate means to enable the national training system to deliver what is required of it. The future of Britain as a competitive nation is at stake. So too are the job prospects of millions of workers".
I agree with Sir Richard. Those aims and objectives must now be backed by the Government with more than empty rhetoric, because we are dealing with the question of investment in our nation's future. The refusal to act, the price of neglect, will leave a tragic and indelible mark on our society, particularly on a whole generation of young people that is being cast aside without hope. It is for that reason that we shall vote for our motion in the Lobby tonight.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`this House regrets the high level of unemployment amongst young people during the present economic recession, but welcomes the Government's massive expansion of the Youth Opportunities Programme and the new undertakings given by the Manpower Services Commission to provide young people with opportunities on the Programme; and strongly reaffirms that only through the Government's economic strategy can a lasting improvement in the economy be achieved and much-needed new and secure jobs be provided for young people.'.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) for having explained why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not present today. As the United Kingdom is to assume the Presidency of the Community in July this year, it was important that he should attend today a meeting of Employment Ministers at The Hague.
It is proper for us to debate youth unemployment. No one can doubt the importance of the subject. To be out of work is always a great misfortune, and although the penalties which flow from being unemployed may not be as great financially as they used to be—though severe hardship can occur even today—the condition is as soul-destroying as ever.
For young people it is far worse. Greater bitterness must arise from thwarted ambition. Great frustration must

result from youthful energies unexpended. There must be crushing boredom, and there is the humiliation of not being able to bring home a wage to help one's family—something that most young people look forward to doing, as their school days end. Clearly, it is the Government's duty to do what they can to help these young people. In a moment I shall outline what steps we are taking.
First, I shall make some general points—more in sorrow than in anger. We have had several debates on unemployment. Not long ago the Leader of the Opposition threatened us with repeated debates on the subject. However, it has become more and more clear as the months have passed that there is not much enthusiasm on the Opposition Benches for these great occasions. When the hon. Member for Islington, Central started to speak there were eight Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber. Yet the Opposition have chosen to debate this matter today. They allege that it is causing much bitterness and hostility in their ranks, and that is why they have chosen to debate this subect on a Supply day. I do not think much of it, if the best that they can do is to produce eight supporters.

Mr. John Golding: The Under-Secretary should note that my hon. Friends are not in the Chamber because most of them are listening to the representations of people from the North-East who have come here today to protest about Government policies. They are not here because they are meeting constituents and organisations from other areas.

Mr. Waddington: At least my hon. friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) is here because he believes that what happens in this Chamber should take precedence over other matters. I repeat that there is a pretty low ratio of Labour Members to the number of people unemployed—one Labour Member to every 312,000 unemployed at the beginning of the debate, and now one Labour Member to every 200,000 unemployed. That is a poor coefficient of compassion.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The Under-Secretary is being less than fair. Every hon. Member from the Northern region, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and myself, are in Westminster Hall at a mass meeting of TUC representatives, or in the Central Lobby, or in other parts of the building talking to people who are unemployed. It is not fair to say that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott), is the only person here who represents the unemployed in the North.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) has exercised his right to explain the absence of those from the Northern region, but that is not the only region in the country.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: Perhaps Opposition protests would ring more true if last week, having had a three-line Whip on the Forestry Bill, they had mustered enough people on Monday night to vote on unemployment in the Midlands. Their record today is in tune with their record on that occasion.

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that clear to the country, because some of the remarks in the press are giving an entirely false impression.
I pay the hon. Member for Islington, Central the compliment of believing that he cares deeply about youth unemployment. I am sure that he acknowledges that others, too, care. If there were an easy cure for youth unemployment, surely no Government would fail to write the prescription. The waste is tragic, and youth unemployment is hated by all thinking people. The political disadvantages of refusing to take steps when steps can be taken are obvious.
The hon. Gentleman knows the scale of the problem and the history of its growth. However, I shall say a brief word about the history. In July 1974 there were 80,000 under-20s unemployed. By July 1976—two years later, after just over two years of Labour Government—the number of young people under 20 who were unemployed had risen from 80,000 to 390,000.
There was an increase of no less than 380 per cent. in those two years of Labour Government. By July 1978 the figure had risen even higher, to 441,000. By July 1980 it had risen to 532,000—the peak.
The figure of 532,000 cannot be wholly the result of the present Government's policies. The hon. Member for Islington, Central certainly knows that the Labour Government cannot take the credit for youth unemployment being down to 80,000 in 1974. He knows that the Labour Government must take a large share of the responsibility for the figure of 390,000 unemployed in July 1976.
Was there not then—to quote the motion—
unprecedented youth unemployment, continual anxiety to school leavers and their parents and frustration to educationists"?
Incidentally, I find the last phrase rather odd. The object is not to put young people into work to stop educationists being frustrated. I cannot think of any educationists who are not frustrated. All who had anything to do with my education were frustrated. The object is to look after young people and to ensure that they can find work.
I am tempted to say that the last Administration served at least one useful purpose—as a bad example to us all. I am tired of being lectured. The trouble with Opposition Members is that they treat the public like fools. The British people know that there is no easy way out. They know that no soft option is available. They know that one cannot lower the duty on petrol by putting up the dog licence, as one of my Socialist constituents argued the other day. They know that the laws of mathematics operate in Government as much as in the corner shop and the pub. They know that if the productivity of a country's industry rises by 15 per cent. while earnings increase by 300 per cent.—which is our record in the last 10 years—that country is living on borrowed time as well as borrowed money and that it had better sort itself out.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Minister aware that people who have canvassed for the May elections do not find that reaction? They find that former Conservative voters are bitterly hostile to the Government for increasing unemployment. Many of them say that their children who have left school are taken on for six months and then sacked so that a fresh crop of cheap labour can be taken on. If the Government really want to do something about that, instead of creating phoney jobs, why do they not cause reflation through a vast house building and improvement programme, which would bring real jobs and satisfy real needs?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is right. A few people always say "Stop the world, I want to get off." That is the reason for the rise of the Social Democrats. I am talking about the majority of people who keep their heads and know that no such soft options exist.
We are suffering from a world recession. The level of youth unemployment here is comparable with that in some other industrialised countries, such as the United States of America, France and Australia. But the self-inflicted wounds hurt the most; they are the least excusable. One is sickened by some people, even now, making wholly unrealistic pay claims which, if granted, can only postpone economic recovery and increase the unemployment for which they are only too ready to hold others responsible.
The answer to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) is that we must emerge from the recession in a position to compete in the world's markets. If we exercise restraint now, if we master inflation, if we cure some of the deep-seated ills in our economy, we shall succeed and youth unemployment will drop dramatically. If we do not, it will not.
An important job has to be done now. To do them credit, the last Administration responded properly to rising youth unemployment by accepting the proposals in the Holland report and introducing the youth opportunities programme. In Opposition we backed that report, and since coming to office we have backed YOP to the hilt. It has grown into an excellent scheme.
Of course criticisms are voiced from time to time. I pay tribute to the TUC for remaining solidly committed to the scheme, in spite of natural fears of substitution. I am sure that the TUC is right to give its support because YOP is not just a way of cushioning young people against the hopelessness of prolonged unemployment. By providing opportunities for training and work experience it gives young people a real chance to improve their prospects of obtaining a satisfactory permanent job at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. James Dempsey: The Minister said that the Government were backing YOP to the hilt. Is he aware that the training services division of the Manpower Services Commission is not backing it to the hilt? Some training establishments still have vacancies. My constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates in the United Kingdom but there are 40 vacant training places for short industrial courses because the MSC will not allocate young boys and girls for training. Will the Minister look into that?

Mr. Waddington: Obviously that is an important matter. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison)—will investigate it. I was saying that generally the total resources committed to the YOP have increased dramatically since we came to office.
Work experience, work preparation and basic training help young people to develop confidence, maturity and basic skills. The programme has enabled many young people to obtain work. It will enable many others to help both themselves and the country when the upswing comes. We recognise that there is plenty of room for improvement, as there always is. Efforts are constantly being made to increase the range of opportunities open to the trainees by giving them as broad a range of experience as possible.
Most sponsoring employers allow trainees to try their hands at a number of tasks so that the work options open to the individual may be increased. When the sponsor is a small employer with little varied work experience to offer, efforts are made to link schemes so that a person placed with such a small employer has the chance to experience more than one job.
I acknowledge that the YOP can be abused. Entrants can wrongly be regarded as cheap, temporary labour. The MSC is constantly on the watch to ensure that sponsors do their duty. I am glad to say that the evidence shows that the majority do that. A few bad sponsors have been got rid of and others, at the insistence of the MSC, have provided new arrangements.
The problem is not all training on the job. Two years ago only 17 per cent. of work experience trainees received off-the-job training. Now the figure is about 40 per cent. and is increasing. Off-the-job training is often important to cope with the problems of numeracy and literacy and other work-related basic skills. The MSC is constantly concerned to improve the quality of training and to fit the opportunities to young persons' needs and capabilities. That means that as more qualified people become unemployed placements are being made with professional, commercial and scientifically based sponsors who are prepared to relate on-the-job learning to relevant technical and specialist further education. The aim is as much to encourage the young person to maximise his or her potential in further or higher education as it is to obtain work. We believe that the YOP is doing a good job.

Mr. David Alton: Is it not a matter for concern that the number of people going back into full-time employment from these schemes is falling? About 41 per cent. now go on to the dole instead of continuing in employment. Indeed, the figure of those continuing in employment fell to 59 per cent. from 80 per cent. last September. Is that not a matter for concern?

Mr. Waddington: Of course it is a matter for concern if anybody who has done a YOP course does not find employment immediately thereafter. My case, which I thought would be conceded by all hon. Members, is that having done a YOP course those people are better able to seize work opportunities when they arise. The point that the hon. Gentleman was making is the general economic point but I cannot, in a debate of this nature, go further than I have gone in that regard and point to the Government's commitment to squeeze inflation out of the system, which in the long run is the only way of ensuring full employment.

Mr. Golding: The Government have given the undertaking that those 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds who have been unemployed for three months by October 1981 should have an offer of a place by Easter 1982. There is confusion in the minds of the careers officers as to whether this includes those who have previously been on a YOP scheme. Could the Minister clarify what the undertaking means?

Mr. Waddington: I was going to deal with the two prime undertakings, of which I am sure the hon. Member knows—one being that school leavers will have a YOP opportunity by the following Christmas rather than the

following Easter, as is the position now; the other being that all other 16- and 17-year-olds who have been out of work for three months will get a YOP opportunity within three months of that period. But my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester has the prime responsibility for this field and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if it is dealt with later this evening. I have no ready answer to that problem, but inquiries will be made.

Mr. John Grant: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves this point, can he give the House the up-to-date figure for the number of YOP trainees who are actually placed in employment at the end of their training now, as compared with, say, a year ago?

Mr. Waddington: I can give some figures—I shall come to that shortly—for the number of school leavers and related matters. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I think that I had better stick to the statistics that I have. If they do not meet the points which he wishes us to cover I will certainly have investigations made and try to get the figures by later this evening.
The YOP, to our mind, must be doing a good job when seven out of 10 of those who went on courses which finished during the year ended last autumn either got a job or entered another YOP course or full-time educational training. As a result of all these matters, we have decided to increase the size of the programme for 1981–82 so that it will be able to offer up to 450,000 places.
The hon. Member for Islington, Central mentioned the total number of places which would be available. The position is that the Manpower Services Commission has not asked the Government to revise the originally agreed figure of 450,000, but naturally the matter will be kept continually under review. At the moment, however, the figure remains as it was at the end of last year, at 450,000 places—a 40 per cent. increase over last year—with 160,000 young people involved at any one time. It means an increase in spending from £209 million in 1980–81 to £320 million in 1981–82. These figures are remarkable when the Government are for ever being painted as lacking compassion and unable to bring themselves to spend money even when it is needed for social purposes of this kind.

Mr. Alton: Although I accept that the amount of money being put into statutory programmes is increasing and that the Government are trying to respond in that direction, does the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously want the House to believe that that is a substitute for the 10,000 apprenticeships which have been lost over the last 12 months alone in private industry?

Mr. Waddington: I really do not think that I can be expected to go further than I have. The hon. Gentleman may have his panacea. He may have some brillant new Liberal policy which would, if put into effect, remove youth unemployment tomorrow. If he has such a policy, we have heard nothing of it yet. We are not really concerned with panaceas; we are concerned with what should be done here and now to alleviate a present problem.

Mr. Clinton Davis: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) raised a matter which is highly pertinent to his area and mine—the accelerating problem of unemployment among black youths. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman offer


any words of encouragement, or optimism, to this group of young people who are becoming disenchanted with the political system, which represents a real danger to all of us?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to raise the matter, but I would not be on good terms any longer with my hon. Friend if I were now to deliver his speech as well as my own. I promise the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend will deal with that particular matter when he winds up.
I dealt with the present undertakings to the young unemployed in answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). I concede, of course, that we should not be too proud about an expansion in the programme which has come about following an increase in the number of those out of work. But an increase in the cost of YOP to the extent that I have mentioned is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. Furthermore, I believe that the impact made by this programme will be not only transitory but perhaps of lasting benefit. It may go a long way towards meeting the needs of our country for a better motivated and better trained young work force.
One matter that is all too often forgotten is that even in these times of recession the great majority of school leavers find jobs. Of the 700,000 young people leaving school for work last summer, only 20 per cent. remained on the register at the end of the year as unemployed school leavers. We must see that those in work also receive suitable vocational preparation. Many hon. Members will know about the pilot programme of unified vocational preparation which has been running since 1976 and which aims to provide training for young entrants into work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 21 November 1980 that we were continuing and developing the programme so that by 1983–84 it will cover 10 per cent. of all young people who currently enter jobs in which they receive no further vocational preparation. We believe that this is of key importance. The need for the country to have a better trained work force at every level cannot be overestimated. There certainly must be a more flexible system of training for skills and we hope that within a few weeks now the MSC's proposals for a new initiative will be published.
The Government are fighting the causes of unemployment and youth unemployment and they are also fighting the effects. We need to raise the vocational skills of those most clearly in need of help—the young unemployed. We also need, however, to provide for those with jobs so that they are more likely to keep employment or, if they lose it, to regain it. We need the help of employers, unions, voluntary bodies—everyone—in this task. It cannot be a job for Government alone. I believe that the Government are playing their part and dealing properly with a serious problem.
I therefore ask the House to reject the motion and to vote for the amendment.

Sir William Elliott: I am extremely grateful to be called in this debate, particularly—as was made clear during Prime Minister's questions and since the beginning of the debate—because there is at this time a lobby from the North-East of England on unemployment.
With regard to unemployment generally—

Mr. Robert C. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I am not seeking to challenge your conduct of the debate, it is, to say the least, singularly unusual for the occupant of the Chair to select a further Conservative Member immediately after a Conservative Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I apologise to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown). I assure him that he will find that the matter will be rectified very speedily.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Further to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are hardly an) Labour Members left in the Chamber.

Sir William Elliott: I return to the point that I was about to make. Unemployment troubles us all. 'There is nothing more certain than that. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown), who has just raised a point of order, suggested a little while ago that I was sitting here seeking to represent the unemployed of the Northern region. I do not presume to do that, but with him and others from the region I do my best for them. I certainly feel strongly for them, and I seek in successive debates in this House and at all other times to do what I can for them.
I agree very much with what my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State said. If there were a magic answer that could rid this country of unemployment in general and of youth unemployment in particular we would rejoice and introduce it, whichever party was in office. But there is no magic answer; therefore we must do our best, particularly for young people. If we do not feel strongly about young people being unemployed we do not understand young people in general, because the vast majority of them loathe it.
I try to understand the problem. In recent weeks I have visited two comprehensive schools in Newcastle upon Tyne and the polytechnic college there to talk to young people about to emerge into the working world. It is a matter of giving them encouragement. There is too much despondency. We should try to suggest to able young people that they will be needed, if not at the moment certainly in the foreseeable future.
Training and qualifications are therefore all-important. I welcomed the Holland report and the eventual youth opportunities programme. I pay tribute to the youth opportunities programme as it has worked in the North-East of England. The objective of the Manpower Services Commission in the Northern region was that 41,000 school leavers should participate in the youth opportunities programme from Easter—in other words, from approximately a year ago. The achievement is that 42,000 school leavers have participated, thanks not least to the massive expansion of the programme by the Government.
As a result, there are fewer than 400 young people without any experience of training in the Northern region. Of those who have known work experience, a recent count shows that approximately 50 per cent. are now employed.
I appreciate that several Labour Members, the spokesman for the Liberal Party, and others have suggested that that percentage is falling. That may well be so, but it is even more necessary to emphasise the importance of training. I appeal to those who have been through work experience and who are not yet employed to


accept the immediate position and to have great hope for the future, because work experience is in itself a qualification.
When the economy revives we shall have in the Northern region more qualified young people than ever before. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that what we have lacked in the past, in regions such as the North-East of England, is skill. It used to be said that we had two great disadvantages as an area. One was location. Often in debates there has been reference to the long haul for our goods. The other disadvantage was lack of skill, which arose from our great basic industries having been such enormous employers in the past.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems that we face, in terms of lack of skills, particularly in the North-East, is that the very dire circumstances in which our people live result in our exporting skills every week by migration?

Sir William Elliott: I accept that there has been migration, but there is considerable hope for the future. More and more of the people with greater skill—and the much more extensively skilled young people in particular—will find employment.
Earlier this afternoon, during Prime Minister's questions, I suggested that there were more factories opening than closing in our region. That is the case. The figures produced recently by English Industrial Estates suggest that there is a considerable new interest in trading estates in the region.
We have known in the Northern region—the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West is as well aware of this as I am—the enormous problem of the closure of the Consett steelworks. It would be a substantial problem for any region. Yet in Derwentside, in the Consett area, there are 57 factory units now under construction. Twelve are already reserved. There is considerable interest in the balance. There are already an assured 700 future jobs.

Mr. Alton: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what numbers of jobs are involved in the Consett example that he gave us—the number of jobs displaced through the closure of the steelworks and the number likely to be created by the new factories?

Sir William Elliott: The approximate number of jobs lost through the closure of Consett steelworks was 3,500. But already there has been a considerable very refreshing initiative from many people in Consett. A good many of those who have been made redundant are seeking to set up small businesses. Some of them have already done so successfully. That will help to reduce the figure of 3,500. So will the new units. These units are being funded by resources specially allocated by the Government for the steel closure areas of Scunthorpe and Consett, and between £4 million and £5 million will be available annually for the next three years. That will do a great deal to create new employment to replace the old.
In addition to the 700 jobs that will come from those units there is a good deal of industrial activity elsewhere. Findus Foods—a firm that we welcome to the Northern region—will provide 1,000 new jobs when it opens in September.
I say all this in the name of optimism. We need a bit of optimism. The optimism is well-founded. New industry has come into the region. There will be work for many young people who are now unemployed.
Training availability under the youth opportunities programme is greater than it has ever been in the Northern region or anywhere else. There can be a 13-week short training course, which can be associated with 26 weeks with an employer for work experience, and then there can be a further six weeks' training. The results are already there to see. We have more skilled and able young people for the take-up in the economy, ready for the new industrial expansion, than we have ever had before in the region.
As my hon. and learned Friend said, youth opportunities are not an end in themselves but they provide very valuable training, and industry will benefit. I congratulate the Manpower Services Commission, particularly that section of it which is in the Northern region. I also congratulate and pay tribute to co-operative employers for their help. Lastly, I pay tribute, in his absence, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who understands very well the enormous problems of regions such as mine.
The overall aim of the YOP is to obtain the maximum benefit for the individual youngster. It is pleasing to learn that in the last week the Manpower Services Commission in the North-East of England is to allocate some of the best of its staff to see how the quality of training can be further improved.
I wholeheartedly support the amendment. Only—in the words of that amendment—through the Government's economic strategy can a lasting improvement in the economy be achieved, and with it a reasonable level of employment for all.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I shall not follow entirely the speech made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott), but I will take him up on one matter. It is accepted that Government Back Benchers support the Prime Minister at Question Time, and I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for that, but I certainly object to his offering the Prime Minister an opportunity to give a misleading slant by saying that things are not so bad in the North-East because, after all, more factories are opening than are closing.
I do not have to hand the number of factories that are opening, and I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman said, but if 100 small factory units are opening it does not compensate for the loss of 750 jobs at Vickers, Scotswood, in one fell swoop, or the loss of 350 jobs at Tress, Newburn, at one fell swoop and the hundreds of jobs lost in the shipyards. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister, in response to her hon. Friend, to make this sound like a success story.
I make no apology for talking this afternoon only about the city of Newcastle. I want to give the figures for unemployed young people in Newcastle in January 1980 and January 1981. In January 1980 2,645 under-twenties were unemployed. In January 1981 the figure had increased to 3,342. In January 1980 2,391 people aged between 20 and 24 years were unemployed. By January 1981 the figure had increased to 3,121.
All told, 5,036 young people of 25 years of age or under were unemployed in January 1980, and 6,463 were


unemployed in January 1981—a 28·3 per cent. increase in 12 months. In 1980 the number who had been unemployed for over 26 weeks was 1,862. In 1981 the number was 3,184. That means that 37 per cent. of the unemployed in the city were under 25 years of age in January 1980, whereas in 1981 the figure was 49 per cent.
In January 1980 just over one-third of the unemployed under-twenty-fives had been out of work for over six months. In January this year almost half the under- twenty-fives had been unemployed for more than 26 weeks.
The conclusions are that unemployment among young people in Newcastle rose by 28 per cent. in 12 months and that the proportion of young people out of work for over six months rose to almost half of all unemployed young people. That is a damning indictment of the Government, and for that reason, if for no other, I shall support the motion.
The problems of youth unemployment in the Northern region are serious, and are worsening month by month. Many traditional Newcastle employers have drastically reduced their work forces, and small firms in the inner city have been closing down. Young people have felt the impact of these events.
In addition, reductions in public spending have meant a sharp fall in the number of young people gaining employment in the public sector. In various departments of the city council at the civic centre in Newcastle graduates are applying for what 10 years ago were regarded as office boys' jobs. Several scores of jobs which would have been regarded as juniors' jobs four or five years ago are now going to graduates. Hundreds of young people with two, three or four A-levels are applying for office-boy-type jobs with local authorities. Again, that is a dreadful indictment of the Government.
There has been a noticeable reduction in the number of apprenticeships and training courses offered by large firms in recent years. This trend over the area is showing every sign of continuing. Office employment can be expected to continue to decline as public expenditure restraint and the introduction of new technology have a continuing impact over the years.
The Manpower Services Commission advises that at least a 50 per cent. increase in school leaver unemployment will occur this year. That is in addition to the devastating figures that I have already quoted.
The youth opportunities programme was originally intended as a temporary expedient to provide a bridge between school and permanent employment. In the North-East, and in Newcastle particularly, it has become a major component of the job market for young people. Thank goodness that we have the youth opportunities programme. I fear to think what would be the situation without it. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) deserves credit for the work he did on the youth opportunities programme in the Labour Government.
Youth unemployment is a national problem. I compliment the Newcastle city council and the Tyne and Wear county council on their efforts to alleviate the effects of unemployment in the area. This they have done by creating permanent employment opportunities within the local community and subsidising temporary jobs whenever and wherever possible. They have also accepted, regretfully, that youth unemployment is an unfortunate fact of life and have tried to make the situation for the young unemployed more tolerable by opening youth

centres at various times during the day and organising worthwhile opportunities to give the unemployed youngsters some interests.

Mr. Gary Waller: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the major reasons why small firms especially have not been able to employ more young people has been the high level of rates imposed, particularly by Labour local authorities, which at the margin have so eroded their profits that it has been not worth while to take on new people and to invest in the future in that way?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman trots out that Tory hack stuff that no one believes any more. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) is in his place. The hon. Gentleman should have a word with him about the incidence of high rates. High rates are not confined to wicked Labour-controlled authorities. They are to be found throughout the country. I see no prospect of improvement in the near future.
The burden of job loss is not falling equally on all sections of the community. There are three groups that have suffered more than their share—women workers, young people and elderly workers. In Newcastle in July 1979 there were 9,651 men unemployed and 4,059 women, a total of 13,710. In July 1980 those figures increased to 11,502 men and 4,948 women, a total of 16,450. That represents an increase of 19 per cent. in male unemployment and a 22 per cent. increase for women. There was an overall increase of 20 per cent. Over the past six years male unemployment has doubled, while among women there has been a fourfold increase.
Unemployment is not a simple problem. It is one that must be considered group by group. At the beginning of 1980 slightly more than 5,000 young people aged 16 to 24 years were unemployed in Newcastle. That was about 40 per cent. of total unemployment. In July 1980 the number had increased to 7,200 with the addition of school leavers. That was over 47 per cent. of total unemployment.
The operation of the labour market is such that young people in areas such as Newcastle, where unemployment is high among all age groups, form an increasing proportion of the total unemployed. Many of the traditional employers in the city have been reducing their work forces while small firms in the inner city have been closing down.
We have the hope that is provided by the small factory units that the Tyne and Wear county council and the city council have been energetic in developing.

Sir William Elliott: Hear, hear.

Mr. Brown: I am glad to know that I have the agreement of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon. Tyne, North.
On the Bells Close site only one factory unit remains to be let. As the site is in the much vaunted enterprise zone I hope that that one factory will be let quickly.
The reason why 600 people have travelled from Newcastle today to lobby the House of Commons is so that they can express their concern for a generation of young people in our area and throughout the country that has never had the opportunity and privilege of working full time. That is the indictment of the Government.

Mr. David Young: I speak for the 1,500 young people in Bolton who are without work and are Bolton's investment in the future. I recognise that Britain is not the only country with a recession, or with unemployment. I welcome the youth unemployment programme and any programme of like effect that may be introduced, but is not the present programme geared to the present escalating unemployment? We are fighting long-term unemployment which has affected young people and every other section of the community. I pay tribute to the local authority in my area, which happens to be Labour-controlled. It has used all its available resources to provide employment for young people. However, the only question that counts in the end is whether there is a meaningful job. It appears that what was intended as a short-term, stop-gap measure is being used on a permanent basis.
We cannot talk about youth unemployment without considering the economic situation generally. Unemployment in the North-West increased to 12·4 per cent. compared with 7·7 per cent. a year ago. In Bolton unemployment increased to 12·3 per cent., whereas it was 6·3 per cent. a year ago. Youth unemployment increased during the year by 137 per cent. Bad though these figures are, the worry is that Government policy is eroding Bolton's industrial base. No matter what schemes are evolved to deal with youth unemployment, we shall never find meaningful jobs for our youth if the industries disappear that should provide the jobs.
One of the Government's first actions was to remove development area status from Bolton. That is a good example of their attitude towards the town. That status was given to Bolton in 1972, when the unemployment rate was 4·7 per cent. When it was removed in 1979 the rate was 5·9 per cent. It is now 12·3 per cent. The Government's policy for Bolton appears to be to provide less aid as unemployment increases. Their policy takes firms away from an area of escalating unemployment while other firms are not attracted in. As industries move out of Bolton, close down or go bankrupt, no other industries are attracted in and obviously jobs are not available for young people.
We talk glibly about when the upturn will come. I am unaware of any prophecies or estimates of when that will be. However, when the upturn comes, the skill of the apprentice will be required. As industries close now, apprentices are not being taken on. In many industries in my town apprentices are being declared redundant with the rest of the workers. Last year, only one firm in Bolton—British Aerospace—was taking its full allocation of apprentices. Now, British Aerospace is declaring almost 300 redundancies. That is the present situation.
I ask the Government to ensure that the measures which are being and which will be put forward will deal with the long-term problem. As for youth opportunities proposals and schemes, a circular from my local jobs centre contains the following paragraph:
Some resistance is being experienced by youngsters advised to consider YOP, due to the failure to increase the £23·50 allowance in line with the increases in unemployment and social security benefits.
There is also a growing feeling that youth opportunities schemes are being used as a means of cheap labour. In many cases youngsters can see no meaningful job at the

end of six months' training. That means that, gradually but surely, resistance is building up among this generation, in whose hands our future lies.
The House would do well to regard with concern the position of our young people. At our peril will we neglect that, because members of this generation, so many of whom find themselves on the scrap heap on leaving school, will not support the democratic institutions which find no solution to their problems. They are young people and will not regard themselves as a lost generation and not be prepared to do something about it. If the House does not find a solution we shall pay the price in social unrest and disillusionment with the very democratic institution for which we stand as Members of Parliament.
Therefore, let us not be so self-congratulatory. Let us recognise that we have a problem and that we have in our hands the responsibility for the future of a generation which will decide Britain's destiny.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: No hon. Member can deny that unemployment amongst young people is a serious and worsening problem. It causes great anxiety amongst all hon. Members, whatever political party they support.
We do not help to solve the problem of youth unemployment by a whole series of set-piece party barrackings in the House. We should acknowledge that the problem has been growing for some years and that it will probably continue to grow, for reasons which are almost outside our control.
Many of the speeches which can be made now from Opposition Benches echo the remarks which could have been made when Conservative Members sat on those Benches a few years ago—and those remarks were made. Those speeches reflected the concern which anyone feels about growing unemployment. However, to start blaming each other for what is happening is not conducive to finding the right results. Therefore, there must be common understanding between both sides of the House about the nature of the problem before it will be possible to find a solution.
Having studied the matter for some time, I sincerly believe that what is needed as a solution is something more drastic, imaginative and wide-ranging than anything that has been devised so far. Many things which have been done have made a contribution. Initiatives were taken by the previous Government. They hoped that what they were experiencing was a temporary phenomenon which could be dealt with by introducing measures which were called temporary and which were designed to be so. Experience has shown that those measures have had to be considerably extended. I pay credit to the Government for extending them and for considering many new ideas and ways in which we can deal with the problem.
However, there is still some wishful thinking that when the so-called upturn in the economy comes the vast numbers of unemployed young people will melt away into jobs. Two things are wrong with that. The first is that even if the economy could expand at such a rate that those young people would be absorbed into jobs, I would not be too happy if I felt that they were being absorbed into jobs without the amount of training and preparation for work which is necessary for them to be good workers and for them to obtain satisfaction at work. Secondly, worse than that consideration is the realisation that if we are to achieve


a reasonable amount of economic expansion and industrial investment, and if it is to be in the country's interest it will be in forms in which there will be little extra employment for people.
The other day I saw the opening of a new plant in the flavours and fragrances division of the chemical industry. It represented a considerable investment and has enormous potential in sales for this country. I asked how many people were needed to look after the plant. The answer was "Two". That pattern is occurring much more in this country and must occur if our productivity is to be comparable with that of the nations with which we are bound to compete.
If we try to organise industry on the basis of simply absorbing people into jobs without regard to industry's ability to sell a product at the price people will pay, we are doomed to disaster. We must have a reasonable level of productivity and, therefore, we must recognise that the expansion of industry will not lead to an enormous increase in the number of jobs. Such increases as we can look forward to are likely to take place in the service sector.
The problem of unemployment amongst young people will remain with us in some shape or form, however well the economy performs. If we recognise that, we must look for a scheme for dealing with that problem which is more comprehensive and more permanent than anything which has been attained up to now.
We must consider something as dramatic as delaying the entry into full-time work—in the sense in which that has been previously accepted—to the age of 18 or 19 years. If we consider the period up to the age of 19 as one in which there must be a combination of education and training in forms yet to be determined—many varieties have been considered—we shall start to come to grips with the numbers game.
We must be positive about preparation for work, which will in turn affect the labour market. It will provide a worthwhile and dignified occupation in training and education before people expect to embark on full-time work for the next 40 years or so of their lives. We must reach that dramatic conclusion to avoid the number of young unemployed people growing out of control and to prevent public anger engulfing us. It requires a change of attitude, but it is not an impossible dream. We have edged towards the position in the schemes proposed. We are starting to see in the Manpower Services Commission the hazy formation of an overall scheme for people between the ages of 16 and 19.
To get on top of the problem we must have the political will in the House to grasp three nettles, the first of which is finance. The Treasury tells us that to have someone unemployed costs between £4,000 and £5,000, yet the money cannot simply be transferred in order to keep a person in employment. I believe that it is a little easier than we are led to believe. The money available can be used for a constructive programme if only we can find the right scheme.
The second nettle is trade union resistance. Trade unions must abandon their cherished ideas about training young people and the ways in which they should be occupied. I understand their fears, but they are no longer relevant in the vastly changing labour market.

Mr. Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Haselhurst: I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest, but I have promised to be brief.
The third nettle is the connection between education and training. The problem is viewed from both sides of the fence, but we need to shake hands across the fence to bring the two aspects together. We must not allow traditional educationist attitudes, combined with traditional industrial attitudes, to prevent us from reaching a coherent solution. We must avoid party disputes, recognise the size of scheme needed and work with a joint political will. Unless we do so we may have another generation scarred for life by the memory of unemployment, which will also have a traumatic effect on our social development.
People look to the Government for action. Initiatives are being taken, but they should be brought together. We should move forward, using experience, and show that we are capable of facing the challenge.

Mr. David Alton: The Government have measured the success of the youth opportunities programme by the number of people who have gone on to full-time employment. It is of grave concern that the number is diminishing. By September last year the figure had fallen from 80 per cent. to 59 per cent. About 41 per cent. of our youngsters return to the dole queue once they are supposedly trained. What point is there in having the best educated or trained youngsters if they end up on the dole?
Many of my young constituents complain about inadequate remuneration on the schemes. The allowance of £23·50 has not been adequately increased in line with inflation. Once travel expenses are taken out, it leaves little more than would be received on supplementary benefit, so the incentive for school leavers to become involved in such programmes is not great.
Industry's annual take-up of apprenticeships has dropped by 10,000 since 1979–80, which is alarming. Whilst it is better to pump money into the programmes than to have people on the dole, if the number of real jobs and apprenticeships is falling there is little hope for the unemployed. The 10,000 drop is a cut of 10 per cent., which exemplifies Government waste in failing to get adequate training opportunities through private industry.
The Secretary of State for Employment is keen to introduce a voluntary option of military training as part of the YOP, but that would damage the intent of the programme. In many depressed areas, a person would be forced to take the option. Six months is not sufficient time for training of real value, which makes the option ludicrous, as well as damaging. Local headmasters have written to me expressing concern.
There is also the correlation between youth unemployment and crime. The Merseyside chief constable has warned that if youth unemployment increases it will mean a corresponding increase in crime.
Ethnic minorities suffer especially from unemployment. Between 1973 and 1977 unemployment doubled, but for black people it quadrupled. Black youth is disproportionately affected by unemployment.
In Liverpool, 47 per cent. of youngsters under 18, 34 per cent. of young people between 18 and 19 and 27 per cent. between 20 and 24 are out of work. About 11,000 people under 20 are out of work. Recently only 20 or 30 job vacancies were notified to one local careers office.


That is appalling, and the Government must wrestle with the problem. If they do not, others will prey on the disadvantages of the young.
A group called "Youth Training" is circulating in Liverpool a letter is signed by Vanessa Redgrave, the chairman, which concerns courses available in a local youth training centre. The courses include hairdressing, drama, cookery, electrical work, dressmaking, boxing and judo. The centre has a tea bar offering soft drinks and soups. It states:
Youth Training is open to all youth between 16 and 22,
There is a form attached to enrol for dressmaking, hairdressing, cooking, catering, music and drama. Nowhere is it stated that the Workers Revolutionary Party, a very Left-wing group, is involved.
However, on 20 March the Workers Revolutionary Party newspaper, News Line, stated:
A call for youth everywhere to build the Young Socialists as a mass revolutionary youth movement and to build the Youth Training Movement was issued by the Young Socialists national secretary Claire Dixon, moving the main resolution"—
at its conference in Southport.
The article states:
The Youth Training centres will concentrate on training youth in all the up-to-date techniques and technology …
We must mobilise a massive youth movement—a revolutionary youth movement. We must take our message to youth everywhere.
We warn that you can have no illusions that there is going to be an upturn in this slump. The ruling class have no answers to this crisis …
There is no peaceful road to socialism—we are building a revolutionary socialist youth movement to lead the struggle.".
It continues:
Vanessa Redgrave of the Workers Revolutionary Party, Central Committee, appealed to the conference to throw its full support behind the Youth Training programme.'
This is a serious matter. One centre has been opened in Liverpool and, according to another edition of News Line, another has been opened in Brixton, in South London. These people are preying on the disadvantages of youngsters and unemployed people.
It is not just people on the far Left who are preying on the disadvantages of youngsters and the unemployed in this way. In the same area, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will know, a group called "Viking Youth" on the far Right is trying to do the same kind of thing. Unless we take measures to try to tackle their problems, unemployed youngsters will be more and more susceptible to organisations of that kind. The cynicism, bitterness, anger and frustration of young people will be used to pull them into these extreme Left- and Right-wing organisations. In this respect, we should heed the warning of the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Young) earlier in the debate.
I accept that there are no simple or easy solutions. I do not believe anyone who says that there are, whether they be monetarists or Marxists. It is right to remind the House that when the present Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Employment, unemployment rose—including unemployment among young people. When he was Secretary of State, unemployment in Britain rose from 579,000 to 1.2 million. In Wales it rose from 3 per cent. to 7 per cent., and in his own constituency from 3·9 per cent. to 11·4 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman said:

I am not prepared to sit in this place and preside over mass unemployment.
I do not hold the right hon. Gentleman personally responsible for what happened after that but I find it difficult to take that kind of sentiment and statement seriously when I see the same right hon. Gentleman walking through the streets of my city waving a stick and shaking his fists, especially when people participating in the march that he led stayed at the Adelphi hotel, the most prestigious in town.
When I hear the Prime Minister talking about the problems of unemployment and about her sympathy for the unemployed, I remind the House that she has not set foot in Liverpool since the election of May 1979

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I remind the hon. Gentleman of his claim that the unemployment demonstration in Liverpool would or could lead to violence. Some of us pointed out that it was a Labour Party unemployment demonstration involving trade unionists in this country as well as people from Merseyside and elsewhere. It did not lead to violence. It was a most peaceful demonstration. Indeed, ours is the only party at present doing anything about rousing the people of this country to activity against unemployment.

Mr. Alton: The House will recall that only a week or so ago my right hon. and hon. Friends and I presented a massive petition, with more than a quarter of a million signatures, from people concerned about unemployment in this country, because we believed that that was a way of bringing the concern of the nation to the attention of the House. We do not believe that rabble-rousing or dazzling rhetoric is an answer to the nation's problems. That is why we do not lead marches. We do not believe that that sort of protest would lead to a solution. We are modest enough to accept that we have no simple solution. I was making the point to the hon. Member for Walton and others that those leading the march had themselves been in jobs in which they had responsibility to try to tackle the problem. They failed before, and I believe that they will fail again.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Alton: I shall not give way. I wish to make progress. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has only just arrived. He has not been present for the rest of the debate.

Mr. Skinner: I was at the youth unemployment committee.

Mr. Alton: The Prime Minister seems to subscribe to the view that if two wrongs do not make a right, one should try a third. We seem to be treated to the same old formula as before. She is regarded by many young people in the North of England as being rather like the wicked witch of the South, except that she has got the words of the spell wrong and the incantation is going sadly awry.
We have had enough of here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians who march through our cities, staying in the most prestigious hotels. Their policies have failed and they will fail again. They are swooping and preying on those unfortunate enough to be unemployed. They are dishonest and deceitful in raising false hopes in communities that have suffered long enough. Indeed, they are behaving in a downright criminal way. There are 2½ million people out of work, and it will soon be 3 million.

Mr. Skinner: Let the hon. Member explain about the Lib-Lab pact. That was when unemployment rose.

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Member explain what the Liberal-controlled council in Liverpool is doing?

Mr. Alton: One person becomes unemployed every 30 seconds. Our entire industrial base is being eroded. Factories close and businesses go bankrupt. Productivity and profitability decline. The entire economic policy of the Government is a disaster. Twenty five per cent. of our people have now been out of work for more than a year. Half a million are said to be unemployable because they lack essential skills, and 77 per cent. have no formal qualifications whatever.
We Liberals have positive and sensible solutions to offer. We would get rid of the pretence that there is an easy solution to unemployment. We would create the climate for new jobs by increasing incentive, by introducing a prices and incomes policy and by giving workers a say in the running of their firms and a stake in the profits. By doing that we would remove much of the confrontation at the workplace—the kind of mindless militancy which in Liverpool, as the hon. Member for Walton knows, has led to the loss of many jobs. By reducing the working week and allowing much earlier retirement we would create the possibility of many new jobs.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Skinner: What about the Lib-Lab pact?

Mr. John Lee: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton), endeavouring to make his contribution, has been present since the debate began. He is now being hounded by hon. Members who have appeared relatively recently. That is monstrous. Many hon. Members have sat here throughout the debate hoping to participate later.

Mr. Heffer: I shall explain to the House exactly what the Liberal-controlled city council has done to deal with unemployment in Liverpool. As a result of Liberal policies, backing the Government's policies, the unemployment situation in some parts of Liverpool has worsened. In housing, in maintenance departments and in other sectors, the Liberals have been responsible for putting people out of work in Liverpool. Let the hon. Gentleman answer that.

Mr. Alton: I hope that the hon. Member for Walton will at some time place before the House any evidence that he may have. The Liberal-controlled council in Liverpool has not made a single person unemployed. There has not been a single redundancy as a result of Liberal policy on the city council. I refute any allegation to that effect. The reason why there has been a decline in the construction industry, with 300,000 people out of work, is that we have the worst public sector house building figures since 1924. That is hardly the fault of the Liberal-controlled council in Liverpool.
I shall not detain the House much longer, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I return to other constructive suggestions that we would use to tackle unemployment. At present, £9 billion or £10 billion per year is being raised in revenue from North Sea oil. We should like to see some of that channelled into many youth opportunities and apprenticeship training schemes. In West Germany, more than 400 occupations are covered by

apprenticeship schemes. We would offer firms new youth training allowances and insist by law that new apprenticeships be created.
We believe that many other useful schemes could he promoted. Insulation programmes, for example are socially useful and also employ people. They also save energy. That would be far more useful than having young people on YOP schemes going around counting the number of lamp posts.
In conclusion, I wish to speak of the climate that we should create for British industry. As long ago as 1879, John Stuart Mill wrote:
There is a far more complete remedy for the disadvantages of hired labour …—the admission of the whole body of labourers to a participation in the profits, by distributing among all who share the work, in the the form of a percentage on their earnings, the whole or a fixed portion of the gains.
It was in that tradition that my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) wrote in his excellent and inspiring book "The Common Welfare":
From the stand point of economic efficiency, as a means of increasing the opportunities of the less well-off, and certainly as a cure for inflation and unemployment, corporatism as it has been increasingly practised in the last 40 years is a failure. A free society must be a libertarian society and that libertarian society must incorporate a free market and voluntary cooperation.
My right hon. Friend then goes on to describe various succesful producer co-operatives throughout the world, and it was in an attempt to try to strengthen that tradition that my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Party, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) forced the last Government to establish the Co-operative Development Agency, to foster the creation and maintenance of industrial partnerships.
We should never forget that it was the Liberals, not the Labour Party or those members of it who belong to the self-styled Institute for Workers Control of Industry, who forced that policy through. That is why this country needs the sort of ideas that I have been outlining today. We shall vote with the Opposition tonight because we are not satisfied that the Government are doing what they should be doing about youth unemployment. I should like to see much more done, and I hope that the Government will therefore take into account some of the things that I have said.

Mr. John Lee: In part the background to this debate has been set by earlier speakers. Currently about 38 per cent. of the unemployed are under 25 years of age. In January 1981 425,000 young people were registered as unemployed, and 136,000 were participating in the youth opportunities programme. By the end of March that figure had reached 156,000. In my area of Pendle, in North-East Lancashire, 500 youngsters under the age of 20 years are unemployed, and only a handful of vacancies are available for them. In January 1981 there were only 3,800 vacancies at careers offices throughout the country, and the MSC estimates that there will be about 600,000 young unemployed school leavers in the 1982–83 period—nearly 80 per cent. of those who will be leaving school in those years.
I have the honour of being the chairman of the National Youth Bureau. It and other youth bodies are finding that their work is almost totally dominated by youth unemployment. At the NYB we are experiencing about a fivefold increase in the number of inquiries from youth


service organisations throughout the country about schemes for alleviating the plight of the young unemployed.
I pay tribute to the expansion of the youth opportunities programme, undertaken by the Government, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister referred. However, there must be genuine doubt whether the 450,000 pledged places can be provided, so awesome is the scale of the problem. Only 50 to 60 per cent. of those completing YOP schemes are going into permanent jobs. An article in the evening paper in my part of North-East Lancashire said that of those in the area who were completing YOP schemes only 20 per cent. were going into permanent employment. That compared with about 70 per cent. when the scheme first started. It is not surprising that youngsters are therefore losing faith in the scheme. That feeling is permeating back to schools, and a mood of depression and disillusionment is creeping in. It is particularly hard hitting for ethnic minority youth groups, for the handicapped and for the disadvantaged.
So much of what has happened was fairly predictable. Last July, in our debate on young persons, I asked:
Are these schemes on a sufficient scale to deal with the whirlwind which now approaches?
I said:
The social and political dangers of substantial numbers of unemployed young people cannot be overestimated. Extremists of the Left or of the Right are gathering like vultures."—[Official Report, 7 July 1980; Vol. 988, c. 70.]
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to that aspect. Nine months later it is apparent that the schemes that were in operation were inadequate to deal with the size of the problem, and the rise of extremist racist youth movements must make all those who believe in a tolerant and decent society shudder.
It is accepted by all, irrespective of political persuasion, that the traditionally high levels of employment of the past will not be reached for some time. We are living with a fairly high permanent level of unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) referred to that. He at least has started to think about a radical approach and radical alternatives. We have to face the realities. We cannot be ostrich-like and bury our heads in the sand.
What, then, can the Government and society do for our young people? There is no one answer. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister agreed with that. We must tackle the problem in a number of ways. First, let us think about broadening the youth opportunities programme to embrace many more voluntary and community-based organisations. For example, the Scouts have been doing an enormous amount of work recently in examining their role to see how they can help in solving present difficult problems.
Secondly, we must examine the financial differentials that exist between young people—those who are continuing in sixth form courses and colleges of further education and who are effectively receiving no wage, the unemployed youngster, who receives about £15·50, and the YOP participant, who receives about £23·50. We must consider how those differentials affect overall youth employment prospects. There has been some talk recently of the Government considering a flat £5 a week payment to almost all 16-year-olds. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point when he replies to the debate.
Thirdly, we must re-examine the whole question of early retirement and the scope for work sharing and perhaps reducing overtime. I should like to think that the trade unions would play their full part in those discussions. Fourthly, we must examine the on-costs, such as national insurance, which inhibit employers from taking on young people permanently. Could we devise incentives to encourage firms to take on more apprentices?
Fifthly, there is the whole area of voluntary involvement with the military and Outward Bound organisations. I raised this aspect in the debate last July. The National Youth Bureau and the majority of those in the youth services are opposed to the military option for a variety of reasons, and I accept that it is far better to keep that option outside the youth opportunities programme. But, given the size of the problem, it is unrealistic to discard the option. Already the Ministry of Defence is providing certain non-military courses, and these are well regarded by those who operate in youth activities. Perhaps we should consider extending the pre-recruitment period for those who wish to undertake a more permanent military career, or perhaps we should consider expanding the cadet forces—the sea cadets and the air training corps, perhaps with an enlargement of the TAVR.
Sixthly, we should consider a degree of privatisation or contracting out by letting youth bodies or commercial undertakings produce alternative packages of training, perhaps on some form of tender basis. In short, we must examine all the options with open minds.
There is a danger that if we fail to rise to the challenge of providing stimulation, motivation, involvement and opportunity for young people a whole generation may be blighted. The suffering will be not only on the part of individuals directly involved. A disinterested generation will pose a threat to the cohesiveness of our society. I know that the Government are aware of the problem and that they care, as do hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, as has been demonstrated by their speeches. It is particularly pleasing that so many of my hon. Friends participate in the youth lobby and in national and youth affairs, and genuinely care. In the longer term our economic policies, which will produce greater efficiency in British industry, will benefit all the nation. In the meantime, it is vital that the Government should make available the necessary resources, continue to take initiatives, and rise to the challenge.

Mr. John Golding: I should tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) that I marched proudly in Liverpool and did not stay in a posh hotel. On one occasion when I stopped in that posh hotel I found that it could not provide any black pudding for breakfast, which was a blow. I am also willing to defend my record in the Department of Employment on youth unemployment.
The Minister said that the Labour Government accepted the report of the Holland committee. We did more than that. We added an essential element to it, namely, the guarantee—the MSC more timidly called it an undertaking—that youngsters who left school one year would be provided with a job opportunity by the following Easter. Why did we insist on that guarantee? It stemmed not from any theoretical writings or Civil Service briefs, but from my experience of visiting the South-West. I visited a site at which the training services division was


teaching youngsters to lay kerbstones. I spoke to some of the youngsters, who greatly impressed me. Afterwards I expressed surprise that the youngsters were of such high quality and that there were no rough ones on the course. The training services division solemnly assured me that it had weeded out the roughest youngsters and had ensured that those on the course were of the best quality.
A question popped into my mind: What had happened to the rough ones? I went to the careers office and asked what had happened to them. I was told that they were unemployed. I asked when they would find work. The careers office said that it did not expect them to find work. When I asked why, I was told that in a little while, at Easter, other youngsters would leave school and that employers preferred school leavers to those who had been unemployed for 12 months. Those youngsters will remain unemployed. They will probably be unemployed next year.
My attitude was "It ain't on". It is intolerable that youngsters should witness kids from the class after them getting work while they are out of work. As a result of that experience the youth guarantee was introduced. I thought of the kids that I went to school with and found the situation impossible to accept. When the report of the Holland committee was presented to us it did not include that guarantee. The scheme was of a high quality. It proposed to provide so many youngsters with a place each year.
When the Manpower Services Commission presented that report something else popped into my mind, namely, that those involved in placing youngsters tend first to find jobs for the brightest youngsters. That pleases employers, and is the easiest thing to do. Even under the original Holland proposals youngsters who were not particularly bright—there is nothing wrong with that—could get written off by the numbers game. A youngster might not be bright, or might not have got on well at school. He might become demoralised and find himself on the wrong side of his teachers. That youngster could be written off. That is why we insisted on the guarantee, or—as the more timid MSC might say—the undertaking.
We introduced a school-leaver undertaking and then an undertaking for the long-term unemployed. The Government have built on those undertakings. I appeal to them to maintain the guarantees. I appeal to them not to go along the path that Youth Aid would like everyone to go along. I appeal to them not to provide opportunities for only a limited number of youngsters. They should ensure that opportunites are open to all. If, as Youth Aid states, it is a choice of quality or collapse, the Government must solve the dilemma by dealing with each and every problem.
They should not reduce the size of the programme. If the number of unemployed youngsters increases, they should increase the size of the programme in order to meet the needs of every youngster. They should not give way to anyone who asks them to abandon the guarantees.
Will the guarantees be met this year? They may not be. If the Government admit that they have not met the guarantees the Opposition Front Bench should not make too much of it. Let us tell them merely to do better next year. The careers service and the MSC have put in an enormous amount of effort in order to meet those guarantees, but they need more resources. Let this year's failure help us to do better next year. Let us ensure that any shortfall this year is met next year.
I have one serious criticism to make. The Government should not have allowed the community industry scheme to slip in the way that it has done during the past year. There should not be fewer people in that scheme. Despite all the effort that has been put into the youth opportunities programme, the Government have not been sympathetic, as they say. Youth unemployment increased from 170,000 in January 1980 to 305,000 in 1981. There is a desperate need to help youngsters. Against that background, the Government have created enormous problems for careers officers and others by changing the rules on supplementary benefit. Youngsters are being encouraged to leave school at Easter and to draw supplementary benefit instead of staying on to take their examinations in the summer. It is nonsense to pay kids not to take their examinations. What has such action got to do with the quality of education and the quality of school life?
In addition, it costs money to find work. If a youngster's mum and dad are unemployed and things are tight at home, he will not be given the money to go the careers office or to run around looking for work. H the Government are getting shot of supplementary benefit they should replace it with an allowance that would help youngsters to find work. They must think again about supplementary benefit.
In my constituency questions are being asked about the pressure that the DHSS puts on youngsters not to take advantage of the rule that enables them to study for 21 hours per week at a technical college and to draw supplementary benefit. DHSS officials ask how such youngsters can be looking for work if they are in class. The Government should tell the DHSS that they prefer the youngsters to be in college for 21 hours a week while drawing supplementary benefit rather than on the streets. The Government must know what is going on, and they must do something about it.
The Government should take a more tolerant attitude generally to youngsters who, if it were not for the recession, would be in work making money, with all that that implies. We need to expand the youth opportunities programme.
First, we must tackle the problem that I did not properly tackle—I am the first to adrnit—of creating better schemes in big firms and nationalised industries. There is an imperative need for that to be done now. We have to do everything that we can to avoid substitution. The way in which the media have latched on to substitution is criminal. They have tried to discredit the youth opportunities programme. Many media men snatch at one stick to beat with. They do not consider the value of YOP as a whole. The Secretary of State for Employment used the same sort of stick when he was shouting about counting lamp posts, which was a media stunt to discredit job creation.
We should invite the media to consider the picture as a whole. But there is a problem, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee) knows, in that some employers see the youth opportunities programme as a way of getting cheap labour. The Manpower Services Commission has continually suggested that one of the first things that the Government should do is to increase the allowance to at least £27. Perhaps it should be more, but I have always been a moderate negotiator. Allowance should also be made for travelling costs to make them more applicable to present circumstances.
Secondly, we need greater supervision. The trade unions made a mistake on the introduction of YOP by not insisting that youngsters join trade unions. There should be greater trade union supervision of the youth opportunities programme. The Government have had to condone that in agriculture.

Mr. John Townend: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that non-trade union firms would not be allowed to take advantage of the youth opportunities scheme under his suggestion?

Mr. Golding: I think that the quality of the schemes would increase if that were so, because non-union employers generally have the most stingy and exploiting attitude to their employees.
The Institute of Careers Officers made a good suggestion that the Government should bring together careers officers, the MSC, the CBI and the TUC to discuss the problem. We do not want the scheme to be soured because of exploitation by a small minority of employers. We must do more for those leaving the youth opportunities programme without a regular job.
I criticise the Government strongly for constantly using figures that are a year out of date. It does no good for the Government to claim that the placement rate is 60 per cent. We all know that the figures have dropped dramatically in the past 12 months. It is history to be told what the placement rate was in the autumn, or 12 or 18 months ago. The Government should admit freely that the placement rate is dropping fast. The youth opportunities programme can be defended on other grounds than by placing youngsters all the time into regular work. The Government must be honest. If they are not, the youngsters who do not get work will think that there is something wrong with them. What is certain is that there is nothing wrong with the youngsters; what is wrong is the economic situation, for which we are responsible, which is leaving the youngsters without jobs.
The youth opportunities programme was designed as a 12 months-plus scheme, yet the MSC is providing, on average, one placing or opportunity lasting 23 weeks. We must have second, third and fourth placings. There must be a continuing involvement of the youngsters. One cannot finish them at 23 weeks and say "That is it".
I speak for too long, as ever, but the problem now is spreading faster and faster to the older youngsters. The Minister seems to have narrowed the provision for the 16, 17 and 18-year-olds to provision only for 16 and 17-yearolds. Yet now, unlike the situation when Labour was in office, there is a growing problem of the placement of 18-year-old school leavers. Does the Government's school leaving undertaking apply to 18-year-olds as well as to the 16 and 17-year-olds? If it does not, it is a scandal. The Government will say that those youngsters can take part in the work experience programme, but that contains only 25,000 places for half a million-plus long-term unemployed. It is virtually impossible for them to find adequate and satisfactory places.
The under-twenties long-term unemployment, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) spoke so eloquently, is now 96,000, and is growing rapidly. The Government could quickly increase the placing rate from the youth opportunities programme by reintroducing the youth employment

subsidy, so that employers were given a financial incentive to employ youngsters rather than an older person or no one.
I hope that the Government will continue to build on and expand the youth opportunities programme; that they will rectify its difficulties but never abandon it.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: He which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart".
Thus Henry V before the Battle of Agincourt, according to Shakespeare. While honourably exempting members of the Labour Party who are present for the debate, I believe that the founding fathers of the Labour Party must be turning in their graves at the fact that when unemployment stands at 2½ million their parliamentary representatives in two successive weeks have barely been able to fill the rota of speakers and but a handful of them are present. What is more, our friends from the Social Democrats have not made one appearance for the debate.
I want not to pursue that partisan line but to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) about the appalling cost that unemployment now presents. If, as seems inevitable, unemployment tops 3 million in the coming winter, the impact on our economy in terms of transfer payments and loss of revenue will be more than £12 billion, to which we must add the costs of broken homes, physical and mental ill health, vandalism and crime. It will not have escaped the attention of, for example, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that such payments must, by definition, be inflationary because they are paid into the economy and no goods or services are produced in return.
We face a gigantic problem, which seems to have grown relentlessly under successive Governments since 1965 when Lord George-Brown produced a national plan which forecast a shortage of manpower of about ½ million by the end of the 1970s. Almost from the day that he produced his report things changed for the worse.
Within the overall picture the young have suffered disproportionately and will continue to do so, whatever we do, because for at least the next couple of years more will be coming on to the job market, because many are sadly ill equipped by our education system to compete in that market and because many firms seeking to reduce their workforce do so, for the best of reasons, by natural wastage and ceasing recruitment. All the surveys suggest that even if later this year the economy bottoms out or begins a mild upturn it will not be reflected in extra demand for labour, because employers will be looking for a 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or even 25 per cent. increase in production before they begin to increase their workforce. The prospects facing young people are grim and those youngsters are in direct competition with women in many areas. The problem will not go away.
I pay tribute to Ministers at the Department of Employment and to the MSC for their work, but they are taking only small steps, albeit in the right direction. I wish to outline what we could begin to do, but I wish first to stress what we should not do.
First, we should not abandon the battle against inflation. However, in fighting that battle we should have


particular care for the inevitable casualties and should look ahead to ensure that our economy will be fit to fight future battles.
Secondly, we should not promise the moon, as the previous Labour Government did. Outlining his industrial strategy in 1978, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) promised an extra 60,000 jobs in manufacturing industry, but before that Government went to the country there was a net loss of 96,000 jobs in manufacturing. Whatever we propose, we should be realistic about what we can achieve.
Action is possible under three headings. The first is constructive capital investment. I do not want to abandon the battle against inflation, but even this year my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a contingency reserve of £2½ billion in the Budget. He has a choice: he can either fund substantial capital investment projects or spend that money on increased unemployment pay before the end of the year.
It is urgent—indeed, it is almost too late—to consider capital projects such as the Channel tunnel, investment in British Telecommunications and British Rail, and housing improvements and insulation. Those projects could have an immediate impact on unemployment and would begin to create demand in the economy, which would benefit all of us.
Secondly, since the problems of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, will be with us for a long time, we should improve the job release scheme and reduce the qualifying age progressively from 64 to 60. Even that expensive measure should be only the first stage of a progressive reduction in the retirement age for the national pension to 60 for men.
That cannot be done overnight, but there is no reason why we should not commit ourselves to such a programme over, say, eight or 10 years, starting with the job release scheme and going on to a progressive reduction in the national retirement age, which would have a dramatic effect on employment opportunities elsewhere.
Thirdly, too many YOP schemes do not provide the essential training element. We have heard how many employers are having to cut apprenticeship schemes in order to survive. The training boards should step in and support those apprentices. I have urged Ministers to bear in mind, when the MSC sector-by-sector review is considered, the importance of keeping apprenticeship schemes running at a high level over the next 18 months or two years and the important part that ITBs can play. If we do not do that we shall be eating the seed corn of future industrial expansion.
The Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are probably our three best training organisations. I understand the worries expressed by some Members—I exclude the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), because he reacts instinctively whenever the Armed Forces are mentioned—when it is suggested that the Armed Forces could help with training. However, they could play an extra part in training young people. We ask employers in the private and the public sectors to help and I believe that the Services could help, with training not in military skills, but in catering, motoring and all the other skills that form part of the modern Armed Forces. They could offer short courses that would benefit young people.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden that we must quickly reach a view about an overall "citizens-in-training" approach to all 16 to 18-year-olds.
My headings for action are a determined effort to get an investment-led recovery, a planned move to earlier retirement, and training, training and still more training for our young people. Action under those headings can make a great impact on our problems.
I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) that if we do not take the necessary action we shall be sowing the dragon's teeth of social unrest in future. The National Front, the Socialist Workers Party and their allies are recruiting young people. An immensely dangerous problem could emerge on our streets if we do not take early action.

Mr. Derek Foster: The hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) invited us on Friday to congratulate the Secretary of State for Employment on his guarantees and on delivering sufficient finance for 440,000 YOP places in 1981–82. Labour Members would be more inclined to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman but for two things.
First, it is feared that the 440,000 places will be inadequate to meet the need in the coming year. The Times Educational Supplement reported a fortnight ago:
Manpower Services Commission officials fear that the programme may have to cope with close to 500,000 youngsters.
The article added:
But its area boards and regional directors say that they need room for at least another 43,000 in the light of the latest unemployment trends".
The second and more fundamental reason why I am sceptical about congratulating the Secretary of State is that it was this Government that brought about the torrent of job destruction in the first place. A total of 1 million jobs—800,000 in manufacturing industry alone—has been lost since May 1979. Nowhere else in Europe has manufacturing industry lost 15 per cent. of its output in just over 12 months. Nowhere else in Europe has unemployment increased by 77 per cent. Yet, although we are told that the Secretary of State is not enthusiastic about Government policies, he defends them as stoutly as the remnant of true believers. In my view he and his Government stand condemned as incompetent and immoral.
The blighting of hundreds of thousands of teenagers' lives will not be lightly forgotten. Nor will the reaping time long be delayed, when the bitter harvest of disillusionment and despair will stand rotting in the Secretary of State's barns. Yet the right hon. Gentleman expects our congratulations. I tell him that his 440,000 places and his guarantees are the minimum with which a civilised community can salve its conscience. Our young people deserve and will expect much more.
Nowhere has youth unemployment been more damaging than in the North-East. I understand that there are only 200 vacacies for the young unemployed. That is why, along with many of my hon. Friends, I marched from King's Cross to Westminster this afternoon. The march explains why so many of my hon. Friends have not attended the debate. They have been talking to representatives of the TUC and between 600 and 700 people from the North-East about unemployment.
I will, however, congratulate the Secretary of State for his statement in November 1980, when he said:
We are trying, as resources permit, to work towards the point where every 16 and 17-year-old not in education or a job will be assured of vocational preparation lasting as necessary up to his or her eighteenth birthday.


We see this development of the youth opportunities programme in the wider context of improving preparation for and training in work for all young people, and not just the unemployed."—[Official Report, 21 November 1980; Vol. 994, c. 205.]
That is a statement of the profoundest significance, which has not yet received the acclaim that it deserves. YOP will cater for one in three of our young people, and possibly one in two. I must, however, warn the Secretary of State that he should not assume that a greatly improved youth opportunities programme or his one-year traineeship is the best solution for all young people, even in the short term. The best solution for many young people, especially in working-class areas, is to stay on in full-time education. In the North-East about 17 per cent. stay on, whereas in the South-East about 30 per cent. do so. This has little connection with ablility. The right hon. Gentleman should therefore persuade the Secretary of State for Education and Science to give top priority to strategies for increasing participation. He will find a proper educational maintenance allowance an indispensable tool for this purpose.
In better times, many youngsters would have gone into craft apprenticeships, but many companies have severely cut recruitment, sometimes by as much as 25 per cent. About 10,000 apprentices have been sacked in mid-training. The construction industry is already warning that future growth will be constricted by a shortage of skilled men. If industry will not, or cannot, see beyond its nose, the Government must fund at least the first year of apprentice training for many more thousands of young people.
I turn now to the youth opportunities programme itself. Those of us who have been involved since 1977 thought that we were pioneering a new transition from school to work, a new work-based education service and an integrated scheme of opportunities within which there would be progression—all designed to meet the individual needs of young people. If YOP has not always fulfilled those high expectations, it is still a good scheme, and potentially a great scheme. But the need to expand the programme so rapidly has been to the detriment of quality. The reduction in placement rates is straining the scheme's credibility to breaking point. The Under-Secretary of State has told me that the placement rate in the Northern region is 51 per cent. I want to tell him that in certain parts of the North-East it is as low as 18 per cent. and 25 per cent.
The programme must be relaunched as a one-year vocational training programme for all 16 and 17-year-olds. Secondly, 20 to 30 per cent. substitution, especially in work experience on employers' premises, is unacceptable and must be rectified if trade union support is to continue. Thirdly, off-the-job training and education of about 40 per cent. of entrants must be substantially increased. Fourthly, the bureaucratic behaviour of the Manpower Services Commission, which is souring the higherto good relationships with voluntary organisations and other sponsors, must be dealt with.
Fifthly, small work experience and employers' premises placements should be combined in group schemes. Sixthly, the base of information about individual young people must be greatly improved in order to develop individualised programmes with hard education and training content. The early weeks of the initial placement should be used to compile profiles of competence and

qualities. Seventhly, progression from module to module of the programme must increase, but this will highlight the inadequacy of the administrative arrangements for achieving co-ordination and integration. Eighthly, in many cases it is still impossible to know whether what was planned for individual young people is being delivered. Ninthly, every young person should be given a profile of assessment and experience, which is kept throughout the programme and can be shown to prospective employers. Tenthly, the youth opportunities programme and the unified vocational preparation programme should be seen as complementary, sharing the same objectives and designed for the same client group. Young people should be able to move smoothly from one to the other, as appropriate.
The YOP should be designed on a local educational authority area basis with the full participation and co-operation of the Manpower Services Commission, the careers service, colleges of further education, the youth service, voluntary organisations, employers and trade unions. Nothwithstanding what we describe as an education and training programme based on work experience, and notwithstanding the substantial contribution of the various arms of the local education authority, the programme should continue to be administered as a partnership, with the money flowing through the Manpower Services Commission. That money is the lever for achieving change in the education service and for achieving co-operation until we have an education and training department.
The YOP should not only be an integrated programme itself; it should be integrated with all other educational and training arrangements for the 16–19 age group, so enabling young people to move smoothly from education to training and to work, as appropriate. Of course, the financial allowances are unbalanced and must be rationalised, but I warn the Cabinet that if the plan for a single youth benefit involves substantial losses for participants in the youth opportunities programme—as is widely rumoured—it will be rejected by the Labour Party and the TUC, and subsequently the youth opportunities programme will be rejected by young people.
Proper jobs are infinitely preferable to the YOP. We must not accept too readily that there is no better way. The return of a Labour Government, committed to full employment, is infinitely preferable to further monetarist madness. None the less, with the prospect of 3 million unemployed, a Labour Government committed to full employment would do well to get unemployment below 1 million in four years. So we are stuck with high youth unemployment for the foreseeable future. The YOP can be the forerunner of a superb programme of education and training based on work experience.
If the Secretary of State, having made the right noises, uses all his energies to deliver such a high-quality programme, he will richly deserve our congratulations. If not, let him seek his congratulations from the young themselves in the North-East, Merseyside, Scotland and Wales, and among the ethnic minorities of our inner cities. I predict that he will not be congratulated but will be swept, along with many of his hon. Friends, into electoral oblivion.

Mr. David Madel: All those who have spoken in the debate have referred to the scale


of the problem and to the fact that during the past 10 to 15 years the number of jobs in productive industry has dropped dramatically. However, we must remember that it is not only a British problem. Other countries are battling with youth unemployment. The French President has just announced a crash scheme of craft training for 100,000 people each year. So the problem does not affect only Great Britain.
It has been said that the devastating effect of youth unemployment is even worse in homes where someone is already out of work or where there is no history of further education or staying longer at school. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) hinted that even an extra year at school would help.
We cannot expect an early upswing in manufacturing industry. All the automation during the past 10 years shows that while production and productivity can go up in Britain it does not necessarily result in an increase in the total number of people employed. I was glad to see the announcement from the Construction Industry Training Board that this year an extra £2 million in grants for training will be given to employers. I hope that that will restore some confidence to the industry.
In the Budget the Chancellor rightly stressed the importance of small businesses. He talked about the startup scheme. It should be remembered that it is a matter not just of cash or loan guarantees but of management expertise. That is required on a much greater scale than hitherto. More commercial courses in adult education are needed, because without an improvement in management education, cash loans and loan guarantees will not necessarily get a small business off the ground.
It will take time for our economy to adjust to its changed circumstances, and the education service must carry us through this difficult period and help to protect young people from the effects of unemployment.
Two documents were recently published by the Government. One is entitled
Education for 16–19 year olds
and the other "The School Curriculum". In those documents the Government say that they want to extend and improve education. I hope that they heed the advice that they give themselves in those documents. In paragraph 50 of the document "Education for 16–19 year olds", the Government say that more professionalism is needed in the training of careers officers. They say that there is a
need for more and better training for careers teachers, lecturers and officers, through initial and in-service programmes".
The document mentions the difficulties of employers in supporting the part-time education service. They say that stability of direction is needed before it is decided how many people are to be trained. I hope that the Government will follow the advice in the document.
The document "The School Curriculum" is of equal importance. If we do not get the curriculum right—and, of course, adequate specialist teachers—we shall be unable to train people properly for adult and working life. In the foreword to the document the Government state that everyone should be appropriately trained to cope with the demands of adult and working life.
A few sentences from the document make clear the Government's intention. It is only a matter of carrying out that intention. They say in paragraph 21 that
the effect of technology on employment patterns sets a new premium on adaptability, self reliance".

In other words, more specialist teachers are ugently needed. In paragraph 32, the Government say:
each teacher should, wherever possible, be deployed where his professional strong points can be fully used to promote the quality of the pupils' education".
If that means keeping good teachers in the classroom, rather than using them as administrators, that will help.
In paragraph 41, the Government say:
Pupils should not drop potentially valuable subjects before they are mature enough to understand their importance or to have mastered their elementary ideas and skills".
That is another hint that more specialist teachers are urgently needed. Paragraph 53(c) says:
The Secretary of State for Education and Science has accordingly commissioned a study from a senior industrialist of the nature and coverage of these activities, their effectiveness, and ways in which it might be enhanced".
That is a reference to the need for the links between education and industry to be improved.
Finally, paragraph 57 says:
The Secretaries of State will themselves he responsible for taking further the work which is now required on science and on modern languages".
The Government then say that they will act on the recommendations of the Cockcroft committee's report on the shortage of mathematics teachers.
The Government have given many hints that teaching has to be improved. They recognise that the shortage of skilled and specialist teachers is not improving education. They realise that people will be better prepared for adult life if those problems can be overcome. If what the Government recommend in the documents is done and is done effectively, we shall do much to shield young people from the hardships of unemployment. It will take some years yet for our economy to reshape itself and adjust to the most rapid changes in industrial techniques this century. Meanwhile, we must rely on an improved and extended education service to rescue young people from the despair of unemployment. All the hints are in those Government documents. I urge the Government to act quickly on them.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The problems of the underlying economic situation have been left out of this debate. We cannot talk about youth unemployment in isolation. It is part and parcel of overall unemployment. Unemployment has increased because of the recession, undoubtedly fostered by certain Government policies. We must get young people back to work by job creation by means of a change in the economic policy pursued by the Government during their period of office.
My second point is the effect of unemployment on young people. During the 1930s I was an apprentice carpenter and joiner. I was lucky, I learnt a craft. I can think of youngsters—particularly in Merseyside, but also elsewhere—who were employed and thought that they had an apprenticeship, until their factory or firm closed. The unions have often been helpful. They have done their best to place youngsters in other jobs so that they can complete their apprenticeships. However, many hundreds of young workers, particularly in areas such as Merseyside, whose jobs have finished, will not complete their apprenticeships. That is a criminal waste. Schemes created by the Government or anybody else do not compensate such young people for not completing their time and becoming skilled workers and craftsmen. That aspect must be examined.
The key is training, which is a vital part of any future upturn. Because more and more youngsters are being thrown out of work with other sections of the community, when the upturn comes the skilled craftsmen will not be available. I do not say that the upturn will come under this Government, but it will come. Bottlenecks will be caused and thousands of unskilled workers will be out of work who would have been in work if there had been sufficient training. All Governments must have a policy for training and retraining. My Government did much better than most, but no Government have really dealt with training and retraining.
I have disagreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) about many matters. That is inevitable since we represent the same city and disagree about local issues. However, I did not disagree with everything that he said today. I agree with him about the military option. It should not be considered; we should rule it out.
I was amazed that some hon. Members whom I believed to be enlightened should have said that we should consider that option. It is our job to create a nation not of militarists but of people employed in decent civilian jobs. They should indulge in military activities only if they wish to, as volunteers, or when there is a crisis, in which we must all join.
The way to deal with youth unemployment, as with all unemployment, is to change the Government's economic policies. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) outlined the nitty-gritty of what we should do. We must change the Government's economic policy. The way to do that is to ensure that the next Labour Government operate their alternative economic strategy to put our people back to work.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: It is a pity that the Secretary of State for Employment is not able to take part in the debate. We accept and understand the reasons. We hope that he will read the contributions. He will see that hon. Members from both sides have described how youth unemployment is spreading and deepening throughout the country.
Sympathy has been expressed along with indignation and anger. However, hon. Members have not been able to put themselves in the place of the young people who for years have been protected from the harshest impact of life by their families and school environments. Suddenly, when their confidence should be bolstered by that step out of the school and home, when they should be able to count as breadwinners in their own right, they find that in the eyes of society they count for nothing. The school door has been closed, but no other door has opened to let them in.
The demoralisation must be devastating. One youngster told me that because he could not get a job he felt that he had failed his parents, that he was not able to contribute to society, and that society could not find a place for him. That was a heartrending statement.
In the long days that the young unemployed must get through somehow, some will find a useful way to occupy their time. Others will become listless and apathetic, while others will hang around street corners, turn to vandalism and perhaps to petty crime. Some may even qualify for the Home Secretary's short, sharp shock treatment.
Recent studies show that there is a connection between delinquency or criminal activity and unemployment. The true guilt must be laid at the door of policies which cause youngsters to be out of work instead of finding the jobs that they desperately need. One horrifying feature of the record post-war unemployment affects the country more than any other—the record number of young people who do not have a job and who are unlikely to have one for some time.
Parents are desperately worried about the prospects for their children. As their children approach their sixteenth birthday parents are desperately anxious to know whether they will obtain a job. That anxiety permeates the whole family, from brothers and sisters to grandparents.
Even the parts of the country which used to be regarded as prosperous are unable to provide jobs for youngsters. The chances of getting a job depend not on qualifications but on where one lives. The difficulties are most acute in the weaker economic regions. The tragedy is that if the Government do not act quickly—and there is no evidence that they intend to act urgently—the position will become a great deal worse.
The Government predict that unemployment will rise to nearly 3 million by the end of this year and stay at that level to the end of this Parliament. That forecast was made in the public expenditure White Paper, published on 10 March. Many forecasters regard that figure as hopelessly conservative. Even on the Government's own figures there will be a disproportionate rise in young unemployment, as the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) said. That is not just because of the bulge in the number of school leavers. The Department of Employment's studies show that youth unemployment will continue to rise faster than the general rate of unemployment.
Last November the Secretary of State told the House of his plans to expand the youth opportunities programme to provide 440,000 places in 1981–82.
It is now abundantly clear that this figure is inadequate. Indeed, it is a serious underestimate of the need.
The Under-Secretary said that they had received no further requests from the Manpower Services Commission about expanding on the 440,000 jobs, but I understand that the special programmes board of the MSC predicts that another 40,000 places will be required and that even this new target may prove insufficient. So we expect that very shortly now the MSC will be getting in touch with the Secretary of State and asking for that 440,000 to be increased to something like 500,000. I therefore want to put these general questions to the Minister who will be replying to this debate.
When the MSC accepted the 440,000 target of places for the youth opportunities programme for 1981–82 it said that it reserved the right to return to the Government and seek additional resources if that should prove necessary. It is as plain as a pikestaff that additional funds are necessary. I should like the hon. Gentleman to give the House an unequivocal assurance that additional funds will be provided if the MSC tells the Department that it has to increase the programme.
That is not a difficult task for the Under-Secretary. It is something that he can do. He does not need to consult anyone about that. He should chance his arm and be quite adventurous this evening.
Secondly, is it not now time for the allowance of the youth opportunities programme trainee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-Under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said, to be raised from £23·50 to a figure that will restore the original


purchasing power? The MSC has recommended an increase, and if the figure is raised now it will help to maintain the interest of young people and the widespread support it enjoys.
Above all, we need to know when the fine words used by the Secretary of State for Employment on 21 November 1980 will be translated into action. I want to refresh the memories of hon. Members as to what he said when introducing the special measures:
We see this development of the youth opportunities programme in the wider context of improving preparation for and training in work for all young people, and not just the unemployed … What we are trying to build up in these days is a system whereby 16 and 17-year-olds will be better equipped for working life, and this is being further considered within our review of industrial training." [Official Report, 21 November 1980; Vol. 994, c. 205.]
The Opposition continue to support all the schemes currently in operation, but we want to go further. We want to go along the road laid down by the Secretary of State in November of last year. We support the youth opportunities programme, the community industry programme and the community enterprise programme, although that is woefully inadequate. If we are now thinking of long-term unemployment of something like 500,000, it is clear that 25,000 places in the community enterprise programme will not make much of an impact.
A great deal more could be done by the Department itself in addition to the Manpower Services Commission. We could see a restoration of the small firms subsidy and a greatly expanded job release scheme. Most of those who have taken part in the debate know of the ambitious plans of the special programmes board of the Manpower Services Commission for what it calls a quality improvement of the youth opportunities programme. It, too, has our 11111 support. If it is planned to develop the youth opportunities programme to provide for a better quality of education and training this will deserve the support not only of the House but of the whole nation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) touched on this subject.
The MSC is to be congratulated on the initiatives that it is taking but the Government must back up its efforts, because it is now absolutely clear that the problems of youth unemployment cannot be solved by the existing schemes. There are two reasons for this. First, youth unemployment is getting too big to be handled by the existing arrangements. More young people than ever are coming into the labour market and unemployment now is beyond the scope of the present schemes which aim to assist the unemployed.
The youth opportunities programme has a very creditable record so far, certainly in the early stages of placings. Initially, the figure was between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. but there has been a dramatic reduction over the last few months. With total unemployment getting worse and with such increased numbers of young people, more and more will return to the dole queue.
For example, when YOP started in 1978–79 it was called on to assist one in eight young people. In 1979–80 it was 1 in 6, in 1980–81 it was one in four and in the current year 1981–82 it is likely to have to assist one in two school leavers. That is an increase and a measure of the deterioration of job prospects for the young. So what was intended to be relief for short-term problems is now unable to carry the burden of the deepening crisis.
That crisis will persist for as long as the Government pursue policies which deliberately use the creation of

unemployment as an instrument of economic policy. It is tragic that bright-eyed youngsters are being given the impression that once their formal education is over society has no use for them. The expenditure cuts, which are helping to bring about youth unemployment, save far less money than the material cost to society of that same youth unemployment—the cost that can be quantified directly and the indirect cost, which can never be properly counted. That cost is quite apart from the price paid by the young people themselves whom society now disheartens and demoralises.
If this problem is not tackled urgently the social and psychological impact on our way of life will be devastating. The only way to solve this problem of youth unemployment is by a complete change of economic policy, and it is about time that this Government had the courage and the decency make that change.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I will try in the limited time available to answer most of the points which have been made by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I was flattered that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) should suggest that I chance my arm. As an ex-pairing-Whip I am surprised that he gave another ex-pairing-Whip the advice to chance his arm. I cannot believe that the leader of his party or the leader of my party would have given that advice to either of us when we occupied the position that we did.
The right hon. Gentleman said that nobody in the House or in the debate had been able to put himself into the place of those youngsters who have been without a job, some of them for some time. Perhaps that is true; for the vast majority of us it probably is. Therefore it is difficult for us to see from a personal angle the despair which some of those youngsters must feel.
For all that, hon. Members in all parts of the House have shown how strongly the House of Commons feels about the plight of school leavers and their difficulty in getting a job during a recession, especially a job which they want to do.
Both the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield noted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was not here. As they both readily acknowledged, nobody would want to be here more than he, but he had a prior engagement. As I hope right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will appreciate, despite what the hon. Member for Islington, Central said, my right hon. Friend has done a tremendous amount to help young people and school leavers.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Morrison: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has not been here for the whole debate and I do not see why I should give way to him. There has been some banter about who has and who has not been here. I do not wish to pursue that line except to say that I was very sad that, despite the fact that two members of the Social Democratic Party are here, there was no contribution from that party on this important matter. I should have thought that Labour Members would agree that this is a matter with which Social Democrat Members would be concerned, but once more they have not told us what they would do.
It was depressing to hear nothing constructive from the Opposition. The hon. Members for Bolton, East (Mr. Young) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) described the problems in their areas. The Government are also concerned about the problems, but the hon. Members said nothing very constructive.
By contrast, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) proposed that the Government should look again at the job release scheme. Obviously, if we could achieve what he suggested it would help the employment of school leavers.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West was concerned that too many graduates in his area were taking clerical jobs. In America, many people take clerical jobs after graduation, and there is nothing unusual or regrettable about it.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) about the importance of satisfaction at work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) made one of the most important points in the debate when he said that all was not gloom and doom for the school leavers and the youngsters. We should be betraying them if we suggested that all was gloom and doom. By Christmas of last year more than 80 per cent. of last year's school leavers had found jobs. It would be better if the figures were 90 per cent. or 95 per cent., but the great majority of school leavers can find jobs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) said, the international experience has been bad, and this country—

Mr. Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morrison: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have sat quietly through the debate and have much to say in the remaining few minutes.
As hon. Members in all parts of the House have said, youth unemployment has been an increasing trend over recent years. There was an increase of 380 per cent. in 1976 over 1974. [Interruption.] No, I am not making a party political point. The increase in 1978 over 1976 was 13 per cent. The increase in 1980 over 1978 was 21 per cent.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) and the hon. Member for Islington, Central were understandably concerned about unemployment among the ethnic minorities in their constituencies. The draft of the code that they mentioned has not yet been formally presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but work is being done on it and it will be presented as soon as possible.

Mr. Clinton Davis: When is that likely to be?

Mr. Morrison: I ask myself whether, in regard to the young unemployed, there has not been an erosion of differentials. That is a question which all hon. Members should ask themselves. I meet some employers who say that if they did not have to pay quite so much they would take on more young people.
I also ask myself whether the links between schools, employers and unions have been as effective as they could have been over the years. Perhaps the lack of an effective link is one of the reasons for our present predicament.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has had an enormous amount to do with the youth opportunities programme. As he said, he was responsible for the launch and for doing things slightly different from those mentioned in the Holland report. He suggested that the press had blown up the problem of substitution. Of course, we must take that seriously to some extent—expansion of the programme, which the hon. Gentleman launched, will inevitably result in some slippage—but I was grateful for his comments.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that opportunities under the programme should be open to all and that we should meet the needs of every youngster. That is the intention of the Manpower Services Commission, via the Government.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Islington, Central that the credibility of the scheme is under flack—if that is the right way of putting it—because the vast majority of youngsters who go through the scheme are very grateful for it and believe that it has something to offer which otherwise they would not have. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said, work experience as a result of the scheme creates potentially more skilled people than would otherwise be the case.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton)—supported by the hon. Member for Newcastleunder-Lyme—talked about the increase of the YOP allowance from £23·50 to £27. I was in Liverpool two weeks ago and met many youngsters who seemed to be quite happy with the £23·50. I remind those hon. Gentleman that this year, in 1981–82, we shall be spending on the youth opportunities programme £100 million more than we did in 1980–81. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends think that that is too much, but the Government believe that the money is well spent. If we were to increase the allowance there the public sector borrowing requirement would be affected. The Liberal Party, of course, is not concerned with that.
The hon. Member for Edge Hill said that 41 per cent. of those who go through the youth opportunities scheme go into unemployment. That is his figure, not ours; we do not have the figures. But even if he is correct—I do not suggest that he is—the fact remains that 59 per cent. go into employment. I hope that he is grateful for that.
The analysis for 1980–81, for which the hon. Gentleman asked, is not quite complete. If there is a shortfall it will be very small. For 1981–82, which has only just started, we are fairly certain that we shall be all right, but at this stage we cannot know.
Many hon. Members referred to the training element. Under the Employment and Training Bill there is a much more flexible attitude and approach to training. We are talking here about standards and not about time-serving. We believe that it will have a great effect on youth employment.
Several hon. Members mentioned military training. It is extraordinary that Opposition Members seem to imagine that we want to bring back compulsory military training. That is not so. If, under a pilot scheme, 1,000 people went into the Army on a voluntary basis and were told exactly what their obligations would be, employers would, in my opinion, want to take them on afterwards. I have met many school leavers who would like the opportunity to do that voluntarily.
The trouble with the Opposition is that all they want to do is to buy their way out. They just want to throw money at the problem. They are not concerned about inflation. They are not concerned that if we inflate the economy young people will have fewer opportunities. That is sad for the young people. They know that the Government are doing the best for them.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 288.

Division No. 147]
[7 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
English, Michael


Adams, Allen
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Allaun, Frank
Evans, John (Newton)


Alton, David
Field, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Fitch, Alan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flannery, Martin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Atkinson, H. (H'gey,)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ford, Ben


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Forrester, John


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Foster, Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Foulkes, George


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Bradley, Tom
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Freud, Clement


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
George, Bruce


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Ginsburg, David


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Golding, John


Campbell, lan
Gourlay, Harry


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Graham, Ted


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Cant, R. B.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Carmichael, Neil
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cohen, Stanley
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Haynes, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cook, Robin F.
Heffer, Eric S.


Cowans, Harry
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Craigen, J. M.
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Crawshaw, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Crowther, J. S.
Homewood, William


Cryer, Bob
Horam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Cunningham, G. (lslington S)
Howells, Geraint


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Huckfield, Les


Dalyell, Tam
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davies, lfor (Gower)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Janner, Hon Greville


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Dempsey, James
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Dixon, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Dobson, Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dormand, Jack
Kerr, Russell


Douglas, Dick
Kilfedder, James A.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
Lambie, David


Dunn, James A.
Lamborn, Harry


Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Leadbitter, Ted


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan


Eastham, Ken
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Edwards, R. (Whampt'n S E)
Litherland, Robert


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lyon, Alexander (York)





Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Roper, John


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rowlands, Ted


McElhone, Frank
Ryman, John


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sandelson, Neville


McKelvey, William
Sever, John


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Sheerman, Barry


Maclennan, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McMahon, Andrew
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McNally, Thomas
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McTaggart, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Magee, Bryan
Snape, Peter


Marks, Kenneth
Soley, Clive


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Spriggs, Leslie


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stallard, A. W.


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maxton, John
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Meacher, Michael
Stoddart, David


Mikardo, Ian
Stott, Roger


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Straw, Jack


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Morton, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Tilley, John


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tinn, James


Newens, Stanley
Torney, Tom


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Ogden, Eric
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


O'Halloran, Michael
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


O'Neill, Martin
Weetch, Ken


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Michael


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
White, Frank R.


Palmer, Arthur
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Parker, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Pavitt, Laurie
Whitlock, William


Pendry, Tom
Wigley, Dafydd


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Prescott, John
Williams, Sir T. (W'ton)


Race, Reg
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Radice, Giles
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Winnick, David


Richardson, Jo
Woodall, Alec


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wrigglesworth, lan


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wright, Sheila


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Robertson, George



Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. Hugh McCartney


Rooker, J. W.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Body, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Ancram, Michael
Bowden, Andrew


Arnold, Tom
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Aspinwall, Jack
Braine, Sir Bernard


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Bright, Graham


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Brinton, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brittan, Leon


Banks, Robert
Brooke, Hon Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brotherton, Michael


Bell, Sir Ronald
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Bendall, Vivian
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Best, Keith
Buck, Antony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Budgen, Nick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Burden, Sir Frederick


Biggs-Davison, John
Butcher, John


Blackburn, John
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Blaker, Peter
Carlisle, John (Luton West)






Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hayhoe, Barney


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Heddle, John


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Henderson, Barry


Chapman, Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hill, James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Cockeram, Eric
Hooson, Tom


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Peter


Cope, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Costain, Sir Albert
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Crouch, David
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Dickens, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Denshore
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Durant, Tony
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Dykes, Hugh
Kimball, Marcus


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Eggar, Tim
Knox, David


Elliott, Sir William
Lamont, Norman


Emery, Peter
Lang, Ian


Eyre, Reginald
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Latham, Michael


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawrence, Ivan


Farr, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fell, Anthony
Lee, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Loveridge, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Luce, Richard


Fox, Marcus
Lyell, Nicholas


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
McCrindle, Robert


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Macfarlane, Neil


Fry, Peter
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McQuarrie, Albert


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Madel, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Major, John


Goodhart, Philip
Marland, Paul


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Gow, Ian
Mather, Carol


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mawby, Ray


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, Harry
Mayhew, Patrick


Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Gummer, John Selwyn
Montgomery, Fergus


Hamilton, Hon A.
Moore, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mudd, David





Murphy, Christopher
Spence, John


Myles, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Neale, Gerrard
Sproat, Iain


Needham, Richard
Squire, Robin


Neubert, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Newton, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Onslow, Cranley
Stanley, John


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Steen, Anthony


Osborn, John
Stevens, Martin


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Parris, Matthew
Stokes, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Tapsell, Peter


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Percival, Sir Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Pink, R. Bonner
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Porter, Barry
Thompson, Donald


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thornton, Malcolm


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Trippier, David


Raison, Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Renton, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rifkind, Malcolm
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Walker, B. (Perth)


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waller, Gary


Rossi, Hugh
Walters, Dennis


Rost, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Royle, Sir Anthony
Watson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wells, John (Maidstone)


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wells, Bowen


Scott, Nicholas
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Raymond


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wickenden, Keith


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Shepherd, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Silvester, Fred
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sims, Roger



Skeet, T. H. H.
Tellers for the Noes:


Speed, Keith
Mr. Spencer le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.


Speller, Tony

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House regrets the high level of unemployment amongst young people during the present economic recession, but welcomes the Government's massive expansion of the Youth Opportunities Programme and the new undertakings given by the Manpower Services Commission to provide young people with opportunities on the Programme; and strongly reaffirms that only through the Government's economic strategy can a lasting improvement in the economy be achieved and much-needed new and secure jobs be provided for young people.

Orders of the Day — Greater Manchester Bill [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, considered.

Clause 36

POWER TO ORDER ALTERATION OF CHIMNEYS

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 34, line 26, after 'council' insert 'or any person aggrieved'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 13, in page 34, leave out from beginning of line 32 to 'to' in line 33.
No. 14, in page 34, line 33, leave out 'other'.

Mr. Bennett: I understand that the promoter is prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Fred Silvester: That is so. The promoter is prepared to accept the amendment and those grouped with it. It raises no objection.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 34, leave out from beginning of line 32 to 'to' in line 33.

No. 14, in page 34, line 33, leave out `other'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Clause 56

NOTICE OF STREET PROCESSIONS

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 52, line 15, leave out clause 56.
Clause 56 deals with the requirement to give notice for processions. It is an issue that the House has debated on several occasions over recent months and years and it is one on which many of my right hon. Friends still feel strongly. We contend that the clause should be omitted. I accept that it has been considerably improved as a result of petitions and objections, especially in another place, and that many of the worst features have been eliminated. However, I still believe that it should not be included in the Bill.
Should locally promoted Bills deal with issues of this sort? It has been said from the Front Benches that public order and processions should be dealt with in national legislation and not in local legislation in a piecemeal fashion. However, it seems that the promoters of some local Bills have been determined to deal with such matters locally. They should consider their position carefully. If it is logical that these issues should be dealt with in local measures, there should be different measures in different localities to take into account different circumstances. On the other hand, national issues should be dealt with in one set of measures that should be considered as a result of national legislation.
At one stage the promoters of local Bills went for a common clause that had a seven-day provision. When they began to run into difficulties in the House they modified the common clause and it took the form of clause 56. It is now plain that circumstances are the same in each of the metropolitan authorities and in some of the county

authorities. I suggest that a local measure should meet local circumstances. That was the position before local government reorganisation.
In Greater Manchester there was a requirement to give notice for processions in some districts and not in others. The districts that found it necessary to receive notice had the necessary powers. The districts that did not consider it necessary did not have those powers. I think that some authorities required notice for processions that included services and performing animals while others required notice for slightly different circumstances. Different authorities required different periods of notice to take into account local circumstances. It seems odd that we are now considering proposals for, in effect, national legislation by the back door by means of local Bills.
In Greater Manchester one of the fundamental principles of free speech was established by those who went to Peterloo to establish the right to assembly and to march to that assembly. We are removing that right by requiring people to give notice.
I do not object to the requirement to give notice. I think that in our debates almost everyone has agreed that it would be good practice for notice to be given where that is possible. However, on many occasions it is difficult to give notice, and it is especially hard to require an individual to give notice. That is an obnoxious feature and it appears in other local Bills. The provision is that an individual is required to give notice and is, in effect, required to act, and to claim to be able to act, on behalf of those participating in the demonstration. Anyone who knows what happens at demonstrations knows the impossibility of one person accepting responsibility for what takes place on such occasions.
Once notice has been given, can the procession be banned by the implementation of the Public Order Act 1936? I have been disturbed about the number of bans that have been imposed in the past few months. I fully understand that people impose bans because of the possibility of a breach of public order when certain groups, particularly those with strong racist attitudes, threaten to demonstrate. It is dangerous to impose such bans. It is particularly dangerous to impose blanket bans for a month or more rather than saying which organisation is likely to lead to a breach of public order and that a ban should be imposed for the minimum time required to stop that group of people marching. There should be no suspicion that one is trying to achieve the banning of all marches and that that should become established. That would be a dangerous development.
I hope that if there is to be a Front Bench intervention, the Home Office spokesman will make it clear that he deprecates long bans which affect all organisations rather than a ban which is specifically aimed at a group which is setting out to cause public disorder in its demonstration. That development, which has taken place in the last few months, is particularly disturbing.
The clause should be deleted from the Bill to increase the pressure on the Home Office to bring forward in the next Session legislation to deal with the whole area rather than to go on imposing it in a piecemeal way in such Bills, particularly when the rules and laws change in an undesirable way from one authority to another.

Mr. Tom Arnold: The debate has an air of déjà vu about it. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) suggested, I believe that


the matter is best dealt with by local legislation and not by national legislation. I have held that point of view for some time. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's murmurings, I would point out that the Home Secretary in the last Labour Government thought that there were occasions when it was right and appropriate for local authorities to decide what sort of powers they needed to deal with the circumstances of their own area. That point came out in the debates in the last Parliament.
The circumstances of Greater Manchester are such that the chief constable, the police authority and the sponsors of the Bill believe that there is a case for the clause. Contrary to what has been suggested by Opposition Members, the powers that are being sought are not so great as to cause offence. As the hon. Member for Stockport, North said, considerable modifications have been proposed since the original proposal for a period of notice of seven days. We are now down to 72 hours. There is a defence of diligence, if it can be shown that someone took due care and yet was unable to provide the information necessary, for whatever reasons. No prosecution can be brought without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and so on.
We must consider the problems of policing in Greater Manchester. The problems which have arisen in recent years may arise again. It is not sufficient to give examples of other parts of the country, they have their own problems. The sponsors of the Bill are seeking to deal with the problems of Greater Manchester. That is why I believe that much of the criticism which has been directed against the clause is misconceived.
The proposal is fairly modest and goes some way towards dealing with the legitimate fears and worries of the police and other authorities in Greater Manchester, in coping with the sort of problems which we have seen in recent years. I hope that the clause will stand.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I intervene briefly in the debate as one of the signatories of the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett).
The sponsors of the Bill have not proved that the clause is necessary. When I gave evidence to the Private Bill Committee about that proposal no evidence was brought forward by counsel or by Mr. Anderton that the trade union and labour movements in the Greater Manchester area had not co-operated with the police on every occasion, given adequate notice. They believed that it was their right—in a spontaneous manner, if necessary—to demonstrate in a democracy, in the city of Manchester, when they felt that that was necessary. That right is being taken away.
It must be borne in mind that the legislation is basically proposed by chief constables, who have got together and brought forward such proposals. They have been forced down by the House of Commons from seven days' to three days' notice. Mr. Anderton, the chief constable of Greater Manchester, advocated 14 days' notice, but he acted in an entirely different manner when the National Front demonstrated in Manchester and the infamous Martin Webster march was protected by 6,000 police.
There may be a slight difference between my hon. Friend for Stockport, North and me on this matter. If there is threatened public disorder, the Public Order Act should

be invoked until there is different legislation, when racialist and Fascist organisations can be dealt with in other ways.
We feel strongly about the issue. I believe that the Home Office Minister will confirm that the Home Secretary is now considering the Public Order Act, processions and the licensing of those processions. If he is doing that, why are we going through Bill after Bill in the House of Commons? Why are we making it difficult for the sponsors to enact many provisions in the Bill to which Opposition Members do not object?

Mr. Tom McNally: Would it be unduly cynical if I suggested to my right hon. Friend that the answer to his question is that that cabal of chief constables believes that if the measure is included in sufficient Bills they will make up the Home Secretary's mind for him?

Mr. Orme: I hope that the Home Secretary will not be influenced in that way. That would be pre-empting the decision. The Home Secretary will be faced with a large number of decisions about the three-day proposal, which could influence him in his recommendations to the House of Commons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North has played a commendable part in the defence of civil liberties. He has opposed many of these Bills, and many of my hon. Friends have assisted him. He has been successful in bringing down the proposed notification date from seven days to three days. The sponsors of the Bill should take away the clause on the basis that the matter is being discussed by the Home Office, which, I assume is consulting the chief constables and every other organisation, including the civil liberties organisations, the trade unions and every other bona fide organisation. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) should take away the clause on the basis that it is an impediment in the Bill. We should proceed no further with it.
If the sponsors of the Bill will not see reason, I hope that we shall have a Division to record yet again our dissatisfaction with the proposal. It is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with a sensitive and important civil rights issue.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: The Liberal Benches are empty, but according to my local papers the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) is interested in Manchester—in a proposed rubbish tip in my constituency. I should have thought that he had enough problems in his constituency without pushing his nose into mine. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] I was taught that it was a convention of the House to write to an hon. Member in advance if one went to his constituency on political business. That courtesy was not extended to me. Had it been, I could have saved the hon. Gentleman the journey.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing the subjects of processions.

Mr. Montgomery: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was carried away, like the hon. Member for Truro. Rubbish tips are covered by the Bill, but that may come later.
The clause that we are discussing is contentious. Opposition Members have strong and genuine fears, but


the issue has been debated for years. Initially Greater Manchester wanted seven days' notice, but the Acts for Merseyside, Cheshire, the West Midlands and the Isle of Wight contained a modified processions clause providing for 72 hours. The Greater Manchester council, therefore, realistically and regretfully, decided to accept that, which is sensible. When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was Minister of State, Home Office, he stated in the debate on the West Midlands legislation:
There are grounds for debating the provisions of the new clause, and even in its present form it may not be regarded as suitable by every local authority that wishes to have a notice of procession provision in local legislation.
However, I believe that it is desirable that some measure of uniformity should be achieved wherever the inclusion of such requirements in local legislation is thought to be necessary. No doubt local authorities will wish to look at the new clause when considering how they wish to fonnulate any proposals that they intend to put before the House."—[Official Report, 21 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 114.]
Greater Manchester is not jumping on the bandwagon created by the West Midlands legislation. The situation in Greater Manchester is a patchwork quilt. Different periods of notice have to be given in different parts. It is 24 hours for parts of Oldham, Rochdale and the Urmston part of Trafford; 36 hours for parts of Trafford, Tameside and Stockport, the former West Riding area of Saddleworth, Swinton and Pendlebury; and 48 hours for the former Bolton county borough, so it makes sense to have a uniform period for the whole of Greater Manchester.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: It is strange that the periods that the hon. Gentleman is quoting are all less than the period in the Bill and that the districts that he did not mention have no rules.

Mr. Montgomery: That is right. I merely argue for conformity. The 72-hour period has been agreed in the other local government Acts and it is sensible that it should also apply to Greater Manchester.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is not the hon. Gentleman trying to have it both ways? One cannot argue that Greater Manchester should have a provision whether it is required throughout the country or not, while arguing that the period should be 72 hours because that is what has been agreed in other parts of the country.

Mr. Montgomery: As 72 hours has been agreed for other parts of the country, the sponsors perhaps felt that that was the period most likely to be acceptable to Parliament. I repeat that the issue has been debated many times in the West Midlands legislation and in this Bill. The Bill was debated in the House of Lords, came to this House in January for three hours and then went to a Select Committee, where the issue had a two-day hearing involving counsel and witnesses. I was present when Mr. Anderton, the chief constable, gave evidence, and his evidence was absolutely on the ball. He voiced the view of the police force in his area. He comes in for a great deal of abuse from Opposition Members, but he is responsible for maintaining law and order.
I hope that if we vote on the amendment we shall demonstrate that the House is clearly and conclusively in favour of retaining the clause.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I am unhappy about the arguments, because we are discussing

Greater Manchester and not the West Midlands or the country as a whole. If it is intended to achieve uniformity throughout the country we need legislation to cover the country as a whole, but I speak only for the area that I know.
What are the problems and the evidence that point a need for this provision? I do not believe that there is a need. In East Manchester and Manchester as a whole we have a long tradition of free and willing marching to show our views. The Bill is not concerned with traditional church or trade union marches, but those marches illustrate the way in which we voice our feelings about the things that matter. It does not take much for people in Manchester to form an orderly procession to convince others of the strength of their witness or the conviction of their views.
The reasons given for the provision are wholly inadequate. If there were a great deal of disturbance or disorder, or people were being hurt, I could understand it, but we do not have that. We have sensible and responsible people acting together to convey their views. If people go beyond what is reasonable and necessary, we have public order legislation. If this provision had come before the House after a long and difficult period, it would be understandable.
In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) we have had a march and a scuffle or two, but that is no reason for legislating in this House. If it were, we should be legislating every minute of the day. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) laughs because he does not understand the problems. He has come to them only recently. He is not aware of the strong convictions that we hold and that he rather scorns. We take note of his attitude to problems about which many of us feel deeply.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman has so far failed to address himself to the reasons why he believes that the request of the police force, and the chief constable in particular, should be turned down in this case. Why should not due notice be given of marches? Is it fair that the police, who are heavily over-committed at weekends—I know this well from the Stretford area when there are football matches—should be given no notice at all of processions which may lead to racial or other violence, about which the police are naturally and rightly concerned?

Mr. Sheldon: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. Does he believe that the House should simply listen to a request from a police force and rubber-stamp it? We listen to the request, and, if there is merit in it, we weigh it up. But when one considers the disturbances that have taken place in Greater Manchester, there is no case whatever for this provision. It is a peaceful area of the country. Before action of this kind is taken, the contrary must be proved. That case has not been made.

Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Private Bill Committee to which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) referred counsel for the Bill was unable to find any post-war example of any demonstration other than a National Front demonstration which had given rise to any difficulty or any complaint from the police?

Mr. Sheldon: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This measure seems to have been designed to placate the


law and order lobby, which seems anxious to create problems where they do not exist. We have peaceful demonstrations, regularly and frequently, in all parts of Greater Manchester, and it is right that they should continue.

Mr. Montgomery: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman speaks for most people when he says that peaceful demonstrations are all right, but has he forgotten that on 1 March 1980, in his own constituency, the National Front staged a demonstration and rally to coincide with a "Troops Out of Ireland" meeting? Could there not have been grave public disorder on that occasion if the police had not had prior notice?

Mr. Sheldon: In the past 100 years the hon. Gentleman can quote that one example. Let him quote some more, or tell me when legislation has been passed by the House as a result of one example. The House is rightly slow to legislate on many matters. On matters concerned with public order it is extremely slow, and it is right that that should be so. To rush into legislation because of the views put forward by one chief constable, perhaps aided and abetted by a couple of others, is not the correct way to proceed. We must be convinced in our own minds not that it is desirable but that it is necessary and even essential. That case has certainly not been made.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, sadly, there have been fairly riotous occasions in the Greater Manchester area but that the most riotous of them were a very long time ago? The Oldham by-election in 1897, which I believe was contested by Churchill and Mawdsley, occasioned a considerable breach of public order, but no one went forward for a ban then. In the period 1911–12 a series of demonstrations caused problems, but no one went forward for a ban. Recent incidents have been far more peaceful than some of those that took place in the past.

Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend rightly puts the matter fully into perspective.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is, however, wholly incorrect. Mr. Churchill, as he then was, never fought a by-election in 1897.

Mr. McNally: But did he cause a riot when he did?

Mr. Sheldon: The essential point remains, as my hon. Friend rightly said, that one must go back a long way to a period when there was disorder. We have a reputation for tranquillity and knowing how to behave ourselves. With that kind of background and tradition, there is no justification whatever for a clause of this kind. We should throw it out.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I intervene with some diffidence in a Greater Manchester matter in the hope that it will be helpful if I explain what the Government propose regarding the Public Order Act and the Government's attitude to the clause. We believe that it must be for the House to decide whether the case for the provision has been adequately made in terms of the special needs of the Greater Manchester area.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) referred to the review of the Public Order Act being carried out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That is certainly so. The issue was discussed in the Green Paper published not long ago. I cannot say precisely when my right hon. Friend will be able to publish the results of his review. I am glad to say that there have been a considerable number of responses. It would therefore not be right, as hon. Members have suggested, to shelve or to delete the clause purely on the ground that the Government's conclusions on this matter are imminent. Without in any way wishing to prejudge what those conclusions may be, one clearly cannot conclude that legislation would immediately follow the publication of the results of the review. I believe that the House should therefore look carefully at the present proposal-in the light of the case made by the sponsors of the Bill.
In that regard, it must be relevant to recall that a Committee of the House which considered the matter concluded that the clause should remain. The fact that advance notice provisions already exist in 10 parts of the metropolitan counties is clearly also relevant, as is the fact that 107 local authorities have restrictions of one kind or another relating to notice.

Mr. Orme: The decision of the Private Bill Committee to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers was a majority decision.

Mr. Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman is rather keen on majorities carrying the day in a democracy. I do not think that one can look too far behind the decision of the Committee. It is plainly a matter that the House would wish to take into account.
In view of what has been said about the desirability of national legislation rather than inclusion of a clause of this kind in local legislation, the fact that restrictions are imposed in 107 local authorities—three in Scotland—and that it is also the law in Northern Ireland that notice should be given, is a matter that the House may properly take into account, together with the view of the chief constable. Clearly, none of these matters is decisive by itself.
I understand the concern of those who do not wish the clause to prevent processions which arise suddenly out of an immediate issue. Several right hon. and hon. Members have stated that it is the right of people to demonstrate spontaneously. I do not think that the clause as drafted would have the effect that they fear. It is modelled closely on similar provisions in recent local Acts—notably the West Midlands County Council Act 1980. I know of no evidence to suggest that that Act, so far—I appreciate that it has not been in force for very long—or others like it have caused any difficulty for those who genuinely wish to march spontaneously in order to express their views on a pressing issue. The clause contains the magic words:
or as soon as reasonably practicable after that time.
I should have thought that there would be a sensible interpretation of those words in that kind of circumstance.
In conclusion, I suggest that, faced with the problems which processions can cause both to the police and to the rest of the community, it is not unreasonable that those who wish to process should have to give the police some notice of their intention to do so.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I am grateful for the Minister's comments so far, but I was struck by his reference to 107 local authorities taking


separate legislation and creating a proliferation of different periods of notice for processions of this kind. Can he give some indication when the Home Secretary will arrive at a final decision? He must surely have some idea when he will make a decision.

Mr. Mayhew: Naturally, I hope that it will be as soon as possible, and so does the right hon. Gentleman. The Green Paper has been published for some time, and it will not be terribly long before the Minister's conclusions appear. But I should not be justified in saying to the House, first, that the conclusions will be here very shortly and, secondly, that it can assume that there will be some legislation one way or the other. I cannot do that. The House would therefore be wise to take into account the fact that a large number of local authorities have thought it right in the circumstances of their areas to have a provision of this nature. I put it no higher than that. In so far as it is of any help for the Government to express a view on this matter, our view is that the sponsors of the Bill have, on balance, made out a case for such a provision having regard to the needs of Greater Manchester.

Mr. George Cunningham: I must press the Minister to adopt a different approach, if not on this occasion then on others—if, unfortunately, we have any—when private local legislation comes before the House containing this sort of provision.
This is at least the third time that I have faced a Home Office Minister on this kind of point in the past 18 months or so. I think that we have had from Home Office Ministers generally a slightly more encouraging response about the prospect of national legislation—that is, about the Home Office's view of the desirability of such legislation. The danger is obvious. It is that Greater Manchester is seeking such legislation, and, further, that it is opting for 72 hours because Merseyside opted for something like that, and that Merseyside was doing that because some other authority did it. We shall end up with a patchwork quilt of something like a national norm but without the House of Commons having ever addressed its mind properly to the principle.
The principle is a national, not a local principle. I quote the words of no less a person than Lord Denning on this important subject. It is obiter, I know, but he was considering the right to process in streets as a result of the case of Hubbard v Pitt in 1974 and 1975. He said:
Here we have to consider the right to demonstrate and the right to protest on matters of public concern. These are rights which it is in the public interest that individuals should possess; and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment so long as no wrongful act is done. It is often the only means by which grievances can be brought to the knowledge of those in authority—at any rate with such impact as to gain a remedy. Our history is full of warnings against suppression of these rights. Most notable"—
and it is particularly apposite tonight—
was the demonstration at St. Peter's Fields, Manchester, in 1819 in support of universal suffrage. The magistrates sought to stop it. Hundreds were killed and injured. Afterwards the Court of Common Council of London affirmed 'the undoubted right of Englishmen to assemble together for the purpose of deliberating upon public grievances'. Such is the right of assembly. So also is the right to meet together, to go in procession, to demonstrate and to protest on matters of public concern.
The day after that judgment someone wrote an article with the heading "Denning's finest hour". Lord Denning was in no doubt as to the right under common law of people

to demonstrate and to process, and of the need always to protect any infringement or regulation of that right so long as everything is done in an orderly fashion.
The point is that that is such a fundamental principle that it is not something to be dealt with in private local legislation. Of course, if certain provisions exist in some local authority areas and other provisions exist in other areas a difficult tidying-up operation is needed when there is local government reorganisation. But this issue demands now, as it always has in the past, national legislation so that the principle may be examined. The Home Office must now—very quickly before another Bill such as this comes before the House—produce its proposals for national legislation on the subject.

Mr. Silvester: I do not intend to cover all the ground again. That would add nothing fresh to the debate. I regret that I cannot accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that the promoters should withdraw the clause. I take that view for two reasons. Although I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that in many respects this is a national matter, it is not solely a national matter. There is no suggestion that we should abolish the right of which Lord Denning was speaking. Under the Public Order Act, for example, restrictions have already been imposed on marches, and the problem under that Act is that it is not always known when the march will take place. I advise hon. Members to read the evidence of the chief constable to the Committee and of those who have the responsibility of keeping law and order in Greater Manchester, because it demonstrates that there is a substantial administrative problem.
Let me quote one part of the evidence given to the Committee by Mr. Anderton, which puts another side to the matter. He said:
Marches and processions in 1981 are not the marches and processions of 50 years ago, net even when the Public Order Act 1936 was enacted. In the 1930s the vehicle level in this country was about 450,000 … today it is 21½ million … In 1980 my force had reported to it 180,000 indictable crimes, many of a most serious nature. That total of 180,000 last year in Greater Manchester was larger than the entire total of indictable crime recorded in the whole of England and Wales just 50 years ago. So what we now say, with all due respect, is that you have to contemplate the policing of public events, public order marches and processions in an entirely different environment and climate from what used to be the case.
That is a not unreasonable statement from the person who is responsible for the practical problems involved. The Bill may not provide the right solution, but it is the solution that has been hammered out in other private Acts. If there is to be a national Act we would expect that that would overtake what we are doing here, just as it would overtake what the West Midlands has done. Perhaps it will be based upon what we are doing here. The police have made a good and reasonable case. This is a practical solution to a problem which they see. The House has debated the subject much and often, and I hope that it will give Greater Manchester the powers that have been given to other places.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 167.

Division No. 148]
[8.00


AYES


Allaun, Frank
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Bradley, Tom
Campbell-Savours, Dale






Carmichael, Neil
McCartney, Hugh


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McElhone, Frank


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McKelvey, William


Cook, Robin F.
McNally, Thomas


Cowans, Harry
Marks, Kenneth


Craigen, J. M.
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maxton, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Mellor, David


Dalyell, Tam
Mikardo, Ian


Davidson, Arthur
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Dixon, Donald
Morton, George


Dobson, Frank
Newens, Stanley


Dormand, Jack
O'Neill, Martin


Dubs, Alfred
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pendry, Tom


Eadie, Alex
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Edwards, R. (Whampt'n S E)
Prescott, John


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Richardson, Jo


English, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, John (Newton)
Rowlands, Ted


Field, Frank
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Flannery, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Forrester, John
Snape, Peter


Foster, Derek
Soley, Clive


Foulkes, George
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Spriggs, Leslie


George, Bruce
Stallard, A. W.


Graham, Ted
Stoddart, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Stott, Roger


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Strang, Gavin


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Haynes, Frank
Tilley, John


Home Robertson, John
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Homewood, William
Weetch, Ken


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Welsh, Michael


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Winnick, David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lamond, James



Lestor, Miss Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey



Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, W. S.


Ancram, Michael
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th. E)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert
Cope, John


Bell, Sir Ronald
Costain, Sir Albert


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cranborne, Viscount


Best, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dover, Denshore


Biffen, Rt Hon John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Blackburn, John
Durant, Tony


Blaker, Peter
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bowden, Andrew
Eggar, Tim


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bright, Graham
Fairgrieve, Russell


Brinton, Tim
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Brotherton, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Butler, Hon Adam
Fookes, Miss Janet


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Foulkes, George


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Chapman, Sydney
Fry, Peter





Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Murphy, Christopher


Goodlad, Alastair
Myles, David


Gow, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Gower, Sir Raymond
Needham, Richard


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Newton, Tony


Gray, Hamish
Onslow, Cranley


Grieve, Percy
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Grist, Ian
Osborn, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Haselhurst, Alan
Parris, Matthew


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Sir Ian


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Hicks, Robert
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Hill, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Howells, Geraint
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rossi, Hugh


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shersby, Michael


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Silvester, Fred


Kilfedder, James A.
Sims, Roger


King, Rt Hon Tom
Skeet, T. H. H.


Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Lamont, Norman
Squire, Robin


Lang, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Lawrence, Ivan
Stanley, John


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lee, John
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thompson, Donald


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Loveridge, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Luce, Richard
Trippier, David


Macfarlane, Neil
Trotter, Neville


MacKay, John (Argyll)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Viggers, Peter


McQuarrie, Albert
Waddington, David


Major, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Marlow, Tony
Waller, Gary


Mates, Michael
Watson, John


Mather, Carol
Wells, Bowen


Mawby, Ray
Wheeler, John


Mayhew, Patrick
Wickenden, Keith


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)



Moate, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Moore, John
Mr. Fergus Montgomery and Mr. Tom Arnold.


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 86

DURATION, REVOCATION AND VARIATION OF LICENCES

Mr. Silvester: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 84, line 14, leave out 'trading' and insert 'trader's'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8.

Mr. Silvester: The amendments are purely drafting amendments to bring the words into line with the rest of the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 90

CONSULTATION WITH TRADERS, ORGANISATIONS, ETC.

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 85, line 10, leave out ' trading ' and insert ' trader' s '—[Mr. Silvester.]

Clause 166

HACKNEY CARRIAGE FARES

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 132, line 28, leave out clause 166.
I move the amendment from a sense of frustration. I should prefer to be moving amendments Nos. 2 to 6 but they have not been selected. I understand that they have not been selected because of the procedures of this House and of the House of Lords when dealing with Private Bills.
The amendments that were tabled in my name express more clearly what I should like to see done. The reason why I move amendment No. 17 is to enable the House to have a full debate in the remaining time because Members on both sides feel strongly that the clause on taxis is not in the best interests of the people of Greater Manchester. There should be better legislation to deal with taxis.
The taxi service is part of the public transport system of Greater Manchester. If it is logical for Greater Manchester to have powers over buses and the rail services throughout much of the area it is logical to develop one taxi service for the entire area. I do not normally like powers to be moved from the district to the metropolitan authority. I should prefer taxi licensing to be left with the districts but with the addition of a Greater Manchester service.
Each district licenses its taxis and there are different arrangements when taxis leave the district. For a long time in the city of Manchester the system was that metered fares applied up to six miles from Manchester town hall, whereas most of the other districts had a metered fare within the individual district.
8.15 pm
The reasoning behind the Bill is to rationalise all local measures. Yet the taxi service has produced further illogicality rather than rationalisation. The districts license taxis for fares within the district and for carrying passengers outside the district for four miles. En the original provisions the distance was six miles. The measure does not allow drivers to pick up as they return until they reach their own district. The taxi driver is disadvantaged because he may have to carry a fare four miles beyond the boundaries and return four miles without being able to pick up a fare. That is frustrating for the taxi driver. It is also frustrating for a fare in Stockport to see a Manchester city taxi drive past with an illuminated "for hire" sign. The driver cannot stop to pick up that fare until he returns to the city. That is unsatisfactory for the driver and for the public.
There are problems for passengers arriving at Manchester airport. I know that many hon. Members use Manchester airport and suffer some of the frustrations, but because they know the system they know what to expect. Unfortunately, a large number of passengers often arrive in this country for the first time at Manchester airport. They do not understand the British taxi system, which

takes some understanding, and they are misled—that is the fairest word—by the taxi driver, often accidentally, but sometimes, I fear, on purpose.

Mr. Orme: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just at the airport but also at the railway terminals that people suffer frustrations? From Piccadilly station to travel a stone's throw to Salford one has to pay a double fare for such a short journey—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My right hon. Friend should address the Chair.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is not Mr. Speaker. I assume that I am in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perfectly.

Mr. Orme: That creates injustice. Many taxi drivers do not like it, whereas a minority exploit the situation. That gives a bad name to the taxi service within the Greater Manchester area.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that. It applies at the railway stations, at bus terminals, especially for long distances buses, and at the airport. I mentioned the airport because it is especially hard on travellers coming from abroad who have had no experience of the British taxi system. Those travellers are often the most vulnerable.
I also have sympathy for taxi drivers who work from the airport, because they are part of a lottery. A driver may have a fare which takes him a mile or two miles or he may be fortunate enough to have a fare which takes him to Blackpool or anywhere in the North-West and which earns him considerable income.
What is needed is the establishment of a Greater Manchester taxi service. That sounds simple, but there is one major problem—the unfortunate custom and practice which has developed over the years that one does not buy a taxi and have it licensed by the local authority. Because each local district licenses its own taxis, that has restricted the number of licences issued. Thus, the taxi plates, or licences, are sold by one owner to someone who wishes to take it over. Some owners refer to the plates as their pension funds. When they give up working they can sell their plates for considerable sums to ensure an income on retirement.
The system of sale is often unfair to drivers. Many people license a taxi and drive part of the day themselves as owner-driver and for the other part of the day they employ a driver and pay him a wage. Many of those drivers would like to become taxi owners, but because of the high price at which plates are exchanged they cannot do so. They often feel aggrieved that there is no system by which drivers can eventually become owner-drivers.
The problem is that licence plates change hands for different amounts in different areas. A plate for the city of Manchester has the highest value and plates for other districts do not cost so much. There was considerable upset in Stockport in 1974 when the borough took in the out districts and drivers who had acquired plates for places such as Marple and Bredbury for small sums had conferred on them the privilege to run their taxis throughout the whole Stockport district alongside drivers who had paid large sums for plates for the old Stockport borough district.
That problem was overcome, though not particularly fairly, because there was an advantage to those from the out districts and a disadvantage to those from Stockport. However, it should not be beyond the skills of the Greater


Manchester council, the district councils, the taxi owners and the drivers, through their trade union representatives or on their own account, to devise a scheme equitably to phase out the practice of buying plates, so that those who have recently bought plates for considerable sums are not too greatly disadvantaged compared with those who obtained plates for much less.
I beg all those in Greater Manchester to ensure that when the Bill goes through a conference is quickly convened to organise one taxi service in Greater Manchester, with no taxi owner or driver being disadvantaged, so that the public will benefit from a unified service with fares for any journey within Greater Manchester clearly marked on a meter and taxis entitled to pick up passengers anywhere in the Greater Manchester area.
I suspect that many hon. Friends will wish to make similar points. I move the amendment to give hon. Members an opportunity to debate the issue. I would have preferred to move the amendments that were not selected, because they would have improved the situation. I hope that the promoters will assure us that the Greater Manchester council will do all that it can to organise a conference and to ensure that within the next year we have, if necessary, another Bill to establish a Greater Manchester taxi service.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to you and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) for my intervention a few moments ago. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were otherwise engaged at the time and I do not think that you or my right hon. Friend understood the import of my intervention.
We have in the Chamber microphones that pick up our voices and operators who try to help us by ensuring that the correct microphones are switched on, but it is becoming a practice of speakers from both Front Benches to turn round and address the House with their backs to the Chair. That is what my right hon. Friend was doing.
I have been told that one addresses the Chair for two reasons. First, the occupant of the Chair can hear and decide whether what is being said is in order; secondly, hon. Members in various parts of the House can also hear the hon. Member who is speaking. I was not getting at my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West, but it is a growing practice for right hon. and hon. Members to turn their backs to the Chair. I have often heard occupants of the Chair tell even prominent Members, including the late Sir Winston Churchill, to address the Chair. The hon. Member concerned invariably complies with that request, which makes things easier for all concerned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He is correct, and I confirm that it is becoming a common practice for hon. Members to turn their backs on the Chair. It has been noted several times by occupants of the Chair.
However, it is also common practice for an hon. Member who is answering a point to turn around momentarily to address the other hon. Member concerned. I took it that that was what was happening when the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme).

Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) tabled several amendments to clause 166, the principal effects of which would have been to make the additional compellable zone one of six miles rather than four and, in the case of the city of Manchester, to extend the added compellable zone even outside the county of Greater Manchester.
Those amendments have not been selected. If they had been agreed, their effect would have been to convert clause 166 back into the form in which it was originally introduced in November 1978. My hon. Friend now seeks in amendment No. 17 to delete clause 166 altogether. Clearly his purpose is to give the House an opportunity to discuss the clause generally and to give his view of the taxi trade in Manchester as a whole.
Here I think it should be said that there are people who feel that the promoters of the Bill should have been much more ready meaningfully to consult about their proposals than they are said to have been. Two men of high integrity, both of whom are highly respected in the Manchester area, have been in touch with me to make that point. Mr. James F. Kent, chairman of the TGWU No. 6/191 branch (taxis) and Mr. Geoffrey Duce, the chairman of the Manchester cab committee, say without equivocation that the promoters of the Bill
would not consider discussing any alteration to the Bill that reduced in any way the powers that the Bill gave to the district councils. Indeed, they kept insisting that we were wasting our time objecting and should be spending our time agreeing with the district councils the amount of increase required to compensate for the additional area …
The letter from Mr. Kent and Mr. Duce goes on:
the district councils when approached would not discuss, nor even intimate, what they would consider a fair enhancement of the existing rate to cover the extra area, insisting that the matter be left until the Bill was enacted. This was not acceptable as it left us with a fait accompli and with no redress.
In view of the stated purpose of this debate, and the clear pressure of time, I do not propose to extend it further. I do, however, feel that at the very least the important point raised with me about meaningful consultation should not be ignored by the House.

Mr. Ken Eastham: I support the amendment. I must confess, however, that I do not feel quite so generous as some hon. Members towards the practices of some taxi owners. As the hon. Member representing Blackley, I have been subjected on numerous occasions to strong complaints about the disgraceful practices of some taxi drivers operating particularly from Manchester airport. There is a constant public outcry for action to be taken to remedy the situation. It is unfortunate that some of the complaints about the blatant conduct of some taxi drivers should reflect on the airport, which has to endure and suffer the blame.
Councillor Franklin, the airport chairman, has recently expressed to me his grave concern about incidents of serious exploitation known to his committee. There have been cases where the fare quoted to the passenger has been so extortionate that the passenger has left the taxi. The passenger has rejoined the queue only to find that some arrangement exists among the drivers that precludes his entering another taxi to negotiate an alternative price. There has been serious protest and condemnation about the conduct of some of the taxi drivers.
Some hon. Members representing Manchester constituencies have been furnished with great wads of


evidence of complaints received through Manchester town hall referring to grave exploitation. I should like to reinforce my protest by quoting examples of correspondence passed to me. A letter from the Colgate-Palmolive company, addressed to the licensing authority, dated 27 February, states:
I am absolutely disgusted with the charges enforced upon travellers by the taxi-drivers at Manchester Airport. Arriving back from a trip abroad at 1.45 pm on Wednesday, 25 February, I tried to take a taxi from the airport to the Colgate-Palmolive building in Ordsall Lane. The first taxi driver demanded double fare, I refused this and said that I would consider one-and-a-half times fare (in itself, I feel, ridiculous). He refused to take me. It is pointless to say the fare should be settled by negotiation. If you once get into a cab at the airport and do not accept his price, no other driver there will take you.
8.30 pm
Another letter expressing similar sentiments from the same firm complained about the conduct of taxi drivers charging as much as £10 to the company for a relatively short journey. Another complainant, who was not even leaving the district of Manchester, writing to the authority in January, said:
I would like to complain about excessive overcharging against taxi No. 144 (Mantax). On Sunday 18 January, 1981 I was at Manchester Airport and decided to take a taxi to the Forum Leisure Centre, Wythenshawe. The time was approximately 1·45 pm. On arriving at the Forum, the clock displayed £1·20. The driver asked for £2·40. I did not argue with the driver. I paid him and then made a note of the time, and the driver's number.
Another complaint with which I should like to acquaint the House was sent on behalf of a foreign visitor who travelled to Manchester through Manchester Airport in March this year. The complainant states:
I wish to bring to your notice that on the 16th inst., one of our engineers, a Japanese gentleman, who is unable to converse in English, was charged £14 taxi fare from Ringway Airport to our premises at Junction Street, Hyde, Cheshire.
The sum of £14 we feel was extortionate and we would ask you to give this your attention. The taxi arrived at approximately 12.45 pm. We enclose copy of signed receipt for your reference".
I could describe other complaints. The town hall licensing authority is tired of hearing about the conduct of some taxi drivers. I do not say that all taxi drivers behave in that way but even if they are a minority they are damaging the good name of Manchester.
If the malpractice is as great as it appears to be, particularly at Manchester airport, it might be a good idea to take away the taxi rank there and have a desk in the airport building where cars can be hired at fair and honest prices, as opposed to the present Mafia-type operations.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to give the impression that all the taxi drivers behave in that way. The local authority should take away the licences of the drivers who operate sharp practices. I have met drivers who behave in a very fair manner. It would be wrong to stigmatise all drivers for the practices of a few.

Mr. Eastham: I assure the House that all taxi drivers do not behave in that manner, but unfortunately the minority who behave in that way do a grave disservice to the taxi service and to the good name of Manchester. We in Manchester believe that it reflects badly on the city, and it is bad for business. The investment in Manchester airport—the finest in the country—should not be damaged. Many people in the city are demanding drastic action. I agree with them, because we have suffered long enough. I therefore hope that Manchester airport committee will take drastic action.

Mr. McNally: If I were a representative of a taxi owners association or a trade unionist I should be worried when I read our debate in the Official Report. Many Members who represent the Greater Manchester area have voiced doubts about the quality of the taxi service. The clause does not solve the problem, and it does not calm the public doubt about the taxi service. The clause leavers the problem as it is.
It is not a matter of knocking individual taxi drivers, or regarding them all as rogues and thieves. The system that has developed in Greater Manchester does not give the citizen a fair deal. It causes problems for the good taxi driver and provides opportunities for the bad ones.
The population of Greater Manchester is about 490,000, but a further 1·6 million people live within six miles of the city. The total population of about 2 million would have been covered by the original proposals. I fail to understand the compromise, because it satisfies no one and leaves many of the 1·6 million people unprotected.
We should not think of taxis as the prerogative of the rich. Manchester is a busy shopping centre. It is important for the housewife to be able to use the taxi service to get home. Manchester is a business centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) gave a timely warning about how a bad first impression by a visiting business man can damage the city's reputation. In the centre of the city are two main line railway stations. The taxi service from them and the fares charged are important.
Manchester is a centre for major specialist hospitals. People might have to use taxis to cross district boundaries when attending such hospitals. Manchester is also the centre for arts and leisure. People using those facilities might also be compelled to use taxis to cross city boundaries.
Because of the policies of Manchester city council many old Mancunians live in overspill areas and have family links in the city. That might cause people to cross boundaries and to use taxis. A recent survey estimates that about 25 per cent. of journeys originating in the city of Manchester end outside the city boundaries but within six miles of the centre. A patchwork of taxi services has developed, causing real problems and opportunities for the worst to operate in that industry.
A number of references have been made to the special status of Manchester international airport. Its location and the inadequacy of public transport put the taxi service in a special position. I hope that it will not be too long before there is a rail link to the airport. Taxis operate what is almost a monopoly service from the airport. The four-miles provision is restrictive. People in some parts of Cheshire will not be protected. Parts of my constituency will be excluded from protection.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: One of the ironies is that many of my hon. Friend's constituents and people in Cheshire who live under the flight path suffer from the noise of the airport but have to pay a surcharge on taxi fares.

Mr. McNally: My hon. Friend is right. I have received representations to that effect.
The original six-mile plan went some way to accepting the realities of shopping, hospitals, entertainment, main line services and of where people live and work. Yet overcharging of between 100 per cent. and 300 per cent.


is not uncommon. That does Greater Manchester and the airport damage. We are allowing the worst to drive out the best. Many of us have seen that this is not inevitable. I believe that since the Home Office legislated on taxi metering from London airport there has been a significant drop in accusations of sharp practice from that airport.
8.45 pm
Taking up something that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley said, the last time I went through a New York airport—La Guardia—thre was an official of the airport, wearing a uniform, standing at the point where taxis were for hire, with a large notice saying "If you have any doubts about the fare quoted to you, please consult the official on duty." That is the kind of consumer protection that we should be thinking about if we want to maintain the good reputation of Manchester international airport.

Mr. Bennett: Representatives of the Home Office are on the Front Bench. We should perhaps press them as to how far they have got with the review that they are carrying out of taxi services outside London.

Mr. McNally: My hon. Friend is ever eloquent and the Home Office is ever attentive. I am sure that the Minister of State, Home Office—the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew)—will want to intervene, because I am sure that with his experience of the London taxi service he understands what a source of irritation and damage this can be. I strongly endorse the idea and I hope that it is taken on board by those who have responsibilities, not least the district councils.
I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). Let us have consultations. Let us have a strong commitment to a Greater Manchester taxi service, because we know that the taxi service is damaging to the Greater Manchester area as a whole; it is damaging to tourism; it is damaging to industry; it is irritating to the local population; and it is—I mean this very sincerely—damaging to the taxi industry itself.
I urge those local authorities and those involved in working and managing the taxi industry to take note of what is being said tonight, because we are voicing the real irritation and anger of the people of Greater Manchester and we are putting to Ministers, to district councillors and to the Greater Manchester council an appeal for proper legislation, and not the inadequate measure before us tonight.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: It was not my intention to speak on the amendment, although I had intended to speak on clause 149, but unfortunately the relevant amendment was not selected. However, having listened to the various speakers on this subject I feel moved to contribute to the debate. It has been said that there are cowboys among the taxi owners and taxi drivers in the Manchester area. I suggest that there are cowboys in every section of society, and I would put the other side of the argument.
I think that it is well known among our Back Benchers that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) feels very strongly about the cowboys in the taxi service operating from the railway station, either because they take him the long way round through Manchester to

where he lives or take him to the border of Manchester and, as he lives 100 yards across the border, they very often want to charge him double the taxi fare.
I am in a somewhat similar situation, in that on occasion, when I have had to hire a taxi from the Piccadilly railway station to my home in Middleton and Prestwich, I have had to negotiate a fare—which varies from driver to driver—because we are going across the border.
On the other hand, there are many good taxi drivers and I should like to pay a tribute to one of them. One very bad night when I was seven hours late and thought that because of the blizzard I would not be able to get home, that man, a good Samaritan, went round collecting people who were travelling on the north side of Manchester—Rochdale, Oldham—and fought his way through the dreadful conditions. On that night I should have been pleased to pay him anything for the service that he rendered to me. So we have good and bad in all sections of our society.
Before the reorganisation of local government boundaries there used to be a very stupid and very silly system. It was akin to the taxi system which operates at present in the Greater Manchester area. Formerly, if one got on to a bus or any other form of public transport and travelled to the border of the next local government authority, one then either had to get off the bus and walk to the bus stop of the next authority and pay a second fare, or pay the conductor a fare to the border of, say, the Manchester authority, and then pay the conductor a second fare if one happened to be travelling in Hyde or Stockport.
I am delighted to say that that silly system was completely eradicated and that with the Greater Manchester transport authority it is now possible to travel across the huge conurbation from Hyde to Wigan paying only the one fare. There has been a sensible rationalisation of resources. We ought to take a leaf out of that book and operate the taxi system on a similar basis. I hope that the Secretary of State for Transport will investigate the possibility of having a similar system for the taxi drivers.

Mr. Bennett: One of the crazy aspects of the problem is that taxis are not dealt with by the Department of Transport. It is the Home Office that is responsible for the licensing of taxis. I understood that the Home Office had a working party that was supposed to be looking at the question of provincial taxis. We ought to be pressing the Home Office to get on with it.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) for his intervention. It is useful to have the information that the authority responsible for taxis is the Home Office. I should like to know why the Secretary of State for Transport is not dealing with the matter. However, it is a point for another debate at another time.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the need for a rationalisation of the taxi service throughout Greater Manchester, so that we can have a unified system whether we are getting a taxi at a railway station or at Ringway airport. My hon. Friend mentioned the occasion when he tried to flag down a taxi with a "For hire" sign on it and could not be picked up because it was not in the appropriate territory. It is an absurd, lunatic system. The sooner the Home Office decides to look at the system and make it sensible—similar to the one that we now have with public transport in Greater Manchester—the better it will be.

Mr. Silvester: We have had a very useful debate. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Stockport North (Mr. Bennett) will seek leave to withdraw the amendment but I am glad that he tabled it. This is not a party matter. We are all disappointed that the Bill still has not solved the taxi problem.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) quite gave credit to the promoters. What they started with may not have been the right answer, but at least it was better than the compromise that we now have. The problem will not be an easy one to solve and the attempts made so far show the enormous difficulties that we face. Mention was made of the cost of the plates, showing that there are very considerable personal difficulties involved. There have been various local Acts in the past, as a result of which different rules have applied in Manchester, Rochdale, and so on.
Times are changing, and the changes are most noticeable at the airport. The taxi service must move into the present clay. There may have been a time when the taxi service was on the fringe of society, but nowadays it is at the heart of it. We all have at heart a desire for the future growth of Manchester airport. We all know what it means for the North-West, and it is right that we should give attention to it.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) suggested that there should be a desk at the airport to deal with people wanting private car hire. As he was speaking, I was looking up the evidence given to a committee in the other place by the senior supervisor at the information desk, where advice about private hire cars is given. She said that passengers arrive and ask how to get to their destination, to stations or other towns, and it is the job of the girls at the information desk to help them in the best way possible, depending on how they wish to travel. The problem is that there are very often groups of taxi men standing near the desk who listen to the conversation and then follow the passengers, or even interfere in the conversation with the passengers. Evidence has been given elsewhere of one or two occasions when the police had to be called.

Mr. Eastham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not defend taxi drivers who conducted themselves in that way. What he says reinforces my comments about the disgraceful conduct of some people, which should be stopped.

Mr. Silvester: I could not agree more. I am simply saying that the desk exists and that there is pressure even on the people manning the desk. The hon. Gentleman gave illustrations of the way in which people at the airport are treated. That is bad for business. It is a shame for Manchester and a shame for good taxi drivers. The sooner we can do something about it the better. With that I agree, and I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thought otherwise.
It would be nice to end on a note of agreement and of hope that we can solve the problem, as this is the last debate on the Bill. I am not in a position to give the categorical undertaking asked for by the hon. Member for Stockport, North to hold a conference on taxis. It is not in my power to make such a promise, nor is it in the power of the people who are in the House tonight advising me. All I can say is that I give my personal undertaking, following the debate, immediately to seek to get Greater Manchester council to take the matter further. A conference may be necessary. As it is a district matter, people will be treading on eggshells. It may be necessary to have a joint conference of districts. I undertake riot to let the matter rest.
As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said, consultation is at the heart of this matter. I am sorry that the previous consultation did not lead to a satisfactory conclusion. The problem will not go away; it will get worse and it is in the interest of everyone concerned that a rational and fair solution is reached. I shall do what I can to achieve that end.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: This has been a useful debate. I hope that the Greater Manchester Council, the district councils of Greater Manchester, the taxi owners, the taxi drivers and their trade union representatives, if they have not been able to listen to the debate, will read it and take note. Hon. Members who have spoken tonight are unanimous in saying that the taxi services should be improved, and we genuinely speak for a large number of our constituents who are dissatisfied. As my amendment would do nothing to improve the situation and was tabled merely to ensure that we had a debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the Third time.

WAYS AND MEANS

Transport (No. 2)

9 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the reconstitution of the British Transport Docks Board and to confer on a company powers over that body corresponding to the powers of a holding company over a wholly-owned subsidiary, it is expedient to authorise any charge to tax attributable to provisions treating as dividends payments made by that body to that company.
This motion relates to our proceedings on the Transport Bill, which has completed its consideration in Committee. It has proved necessary because of a comparatively small technical problem that has arisen over the treatment for taxation purposes of a new statutory corporation to be known as Associated British Ports, which will be set up once the Bill has received Royal Assent.
Those who served in Committee on the Transport Bill—they constitute a slight majority of the thin House that we have retained for this debate—will be familiar with the background. Part II of the Bill provides for the denationalisation of the British Transport Docks Board. The Government's intention behind that policy is to transform the board from its present wholly publicly owned status to that of a private sector industry. The Government believe that thereby the intention of the board, which has been successful so far under public ownership, will be enhanced and improved.
We believe that the board or its successor companies will thrive when freed from the political control that is inevitably exercised from time to time when a trading company is wholly nationalised. We also believe that the change from a public sector corporation to a private sector business will give the management of the docks company access to private capital uninhibited by the restraints which have to be imposed on a nationalised industry by the Treasury under a Government of any colour. That is the background to the policy.
That policy will be implemented by creating a new two-tier structure for the docks business. The board will become a new statutory corporation which the Committee decided will be known as Associated British Ports. It will be a statutory corporation created entirely by the Bill, especially clauses 5 and 10 and schedule 2. Anyone who wants to know anything about the management of Associated British Ports, its proceedings or the statutory duties under which it will operate, can resort to the Bill and to our debates in Committee. He or she will thus be able to understand the position of Associated British Ports.
The statutory corporation will be subject to a Companies Act holding company, which also will be created under the Bill. That holding company will initially be a Companies Act company wholly owned by the Secretary of State for Transport as the guardian of the public interest. However, it is the Government's policy that as soon as reasonably possible the Secretary of State will sell off 49 per cent. of his interest in the shares of the holding company.
At the same time it has been made clear that my right hon. Friend will not use his 51 per cent. interest to intervene in the day-to-day management of the holding company or in its business policy. As a result of the sale

of 49 per cent. of the shares and that declaration of intent on the part of the Secretary of State the holding company will become a private sector company and will operate the docks by the agency of its wholly owned subsidiary, the statutory corporation—namely, Associated British Ports.
That is the structure of the Bill. I shall not burden the House with the reasons for choosing the two-tier structure, with the statutory corporation being the successor to the British Transport Docks Board.
The reason for choosing that apparently curious approach is that it is the nature of docks businesses and of businesses at present conducted by the British Transport Docks Board to be operated under a wide variety of statutory duties, largely contained in local Acts which appertain to ports throughout the country.
The best way in which Associated British Ports can be enabled to continue to discharge those statutory duties is by giving it the nature of a statutory corporation and by charging it with those duties—giving it, therefore, the burden of the day-to-day conduct of the business in the docks concerned. It means that any change in the overall status of the docks business in the future—certainly any change in the burden of the statutory duties which are laid on the owners of the docks—will continue to attach to Associated British Ports. Any change in Associated British Ports will require further legislation.
The practical effect which we hope to achieve is a relationship between the new holding company and its subsidiary—the statutory corporation, Associated British Ports—similar to the relationship between two Companies Act companies when one is the holding company at the head of a group and the other is a wholly-owned subsidiary beneath it.
We intended not only that for most practical purposes the relationship between the two companies should be based on ordinary Companies Act principles but that, for many purposes, the ordinary Companies Act law should apply to the day-to-day proceedings, accounts, and so on, of Associated British Ports. Clause 10, which is already before the House and waiting to come before the whole House on Report stage, sets out in considerable detail the various provisions of the Companies Act which will apply to Associated British Ports, although it will not be a Companies Act company but a statutory corporation.
Some problems still arise. Without the motion, problems would arise in clarifying the position of Associated British Ports for tax purposes. It follows that as Associated British Ports is not a company but a statutory corporation it does not have a share capital. There are other differences which distinguish it from an ordinary Companies Act company.
We hope that for most practical purposes, and particularly for taxation purposes, the corporation will be treated as if it were a Companies Act company. The motion will pave the way for amendments dealing in detail with that point to be taken later. We intend that Associated British Ports will be subject to taxation as if it were a Companies Act company and that for most purposes Associated British Ports and the holding company will be treated as if they were both Companies Act companies.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Apart from the motion, from which it is difficult to discover what is intended, I do not understand why, if we want Associated British Ports to be treated as a limited liability company, we do not make it a limited liability company.
Why do not we make the ports subject to the normal laws of a limited liability company and if necessary, and if possible, make the shares available to the public and employees of that company?

Mr. Clarke: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was here a few moments ago when I explained the underlying policy. I shall briefly explain it again.
It is the clear intention of the Government to denationalise the British Transport Docks Board. We propose to transform it from a nationalised industry into a private sector company, not under the control of the Government and not governed by Treasury rules for its access to capital, which in future will be obtained by access to the private capital markets in the usual way.
One means by which we could have proceeded was by changing the British Transport Docks Board to a Companies Act company and as soon as possible floating it by selling shares. That was done last year with the National Freight Corporation, which is now the National Freight Company, in which we propose to sell the majority interest, if not all the shares, as soon as possible. However, had we done that with the British Transport Docks Board—even changed to, say, the British Transport Docks Company—the company would still have been subject to a range of statutory duties which apply to all its ports. Any dock undertaking within the British Transport Docks Board collection is normally subject to a range of past legislative provisions that place conservancy functions on the owner of the docks and sometimes obligations to provide services and facilities to ships. Whoever is the owner is subject to those statutory duties.
Had we taken the straightforward course we should have created a curious body—a Companies Act company but one which remained subject to a range of statutory duties in the operation of its business. Among other things, we felt that the structure might stand in the way of denationalisation, because it would be an unusual company in which to float shares. One would be floating a company in which to a considerable extent the development of activities would be inherited by statutory duties and might even require primary legislation if changes were needed.
We therefore chose the other method of merely changing the British Transport Docks Board into a statutory corporation—Associated British Ports—but we are making it a wholly-owned subsidiary of a brand new Companies Act company, which the Bill creates. That brand new company will be wholly owned at first by my right hon. Friend, but he will denationalise, in effect, the holding company; then we shall have a private sector business—that Companies Act company—which will be the controlling owner of the subsidiary, the statutory corporation, and in that way the whole business will go into the private sector.
I know that that still sounds a convoluted structure, but it does have its precedents. Although the analogy is not exact, a similar structure applies at Felixstowe. Felixstowe is owned by a statutory company, which is owned by a holding company, and it is the holding company—I believe, European Ferries Limited—which is the Companies Act company and the private sector business.
My hon. Friend's intervention bears exactly on the point. It is a difficult point to get at. In the end, what we are talking about is making sure that although we have chosen that structure for some purposes, because of the

statutory duties on the subsidiary, for taxation as well as for most other purposes, we wish both businesses to be treated as if they were Companies Act companies. In particular, we wish the statutory corporation to be treated for corporation tax purposes, when it makes profits, as a private sector business. We also wish any payments made by the subsidiary business to the holding company—the holding company will derive its income from payments and from its wholly-owned subsidiary—to be treated as dividends for tax purposes.
That will be the effect of the amendments to the Bill that we shall discuss if the motion is passed by the House, but it will not be possible to discuss all the necessary amendments if, for some reason, the House does not approve the motion.
I shall leave the Opposition the chance to make their own points, but I know that they come here with scepticism about what we are doing and no doubt a belief that in some way it facilitates a policy of which they disapprove. They are against denationalisation. They somehow believe that although denationalisation is to the disadvantage of the management—the interference that it suffers and the denial of access to private capital that results—it is, nevertheless, ideologically sound that the corporation should remain wholly nationalised.
Although I know that the Opposition are brought here by those doubts, I suggest that on this occasion those issues are not raised. All that we are paving the way for here is a minor and sensible technical change which will enable these companies to be treated for taxation purposes, as they are for most other purposes, as if they were Companies Act companies.
No particular advantage or disadvantage accrues to the corporation or the holding company as a result. It merely introduces common-sense arrangements with which everyone will be familiar. To some extent, it will enable the holding company to take advantage of group or consortium relief for tax purposes. The motion is particularly required because it would otherwise be arguable that any payments from Associated British Ports to the holding company would not be treated as dividends for corporation tax purposes. The amendments that we have tabled will make it clear beyond peradventure that such payments are to be treated as dividends for corporation tax purposes.
The undertakings will be placed in the same position as Companies Act companies. My guess is that few of those dealing with them in day-to-day business would even realise that they were not both Companies Act companies. The change will mean that the taxation laws apply in a common-sense fashion. They will acquire benefits but also disadvantages from that status, but they will be placed in exactly the same position as any other businesses in their relationship to one another. They will be no better off and no worse off than other equivalent industries. Indeed, had we chosen the straightforward path recommended by my hon. Friend—but for the problem of statutory duties on Associated British Ports—they would have wound up like this in any event.
As I said, the motion is required before the necessary amendments can be taken to make this clear. I therefore hope that although we have had some trouble in our proceedings on the Transport Bill so far, that trouble will not be extended into this minor and not very important technical matter.

Mr. Albert Booth: The Under-Secretary of State is to be congratulated on keeping a perfectly straight face when he said that the motion was a minor, technical matter. I submit that it is one of two things. Either it is an attempt by the Government to repair an error made when they presented the Bill on Second Reading—an error so grievous that they cannot now put down the financial amendments that they wish—or the Government have changed their judgment as to what should be the appropriate financial effects and provisions of the Transport Bill.
It is significant that although the motion is in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport introduced it tonight. Had it been the Financial Secretary we should have been asking him whether there is any constitutional precedent in the history of the House for amending what are in effect the provisions of this country's tax law on the basis of a Bill not yet passed by the House.
There are a number of serious objections to passing the motion. First, the House is being asked to pass a motion which will pave the way for a quite specific tax provision relating to a statutory body before Parliament has passed legislation constituting or reconstituting that statutory body. Any change in tax law consequent upon changing the status of a statutory body, reconstituting the British Transport Docks Board as Associated British Ports, is not a matter for inclusion in the Transport Bill at some future stage. However, we are not tonight debating the Transport Bill. This is a matter for the House to decide in a subsequent Finance Bill.
We should not be asked to prejudge the changes that will be needed in our tax law as a result of this special arrangement, by which the holding company will have as a wholly owned subsidiary the concern to be known as Associated British Ports. It is necessary for the House first to take a final decision on whether it wants to turn the BTDB into Associated British Ports and to make ABP the wholly owned subsidiary of a holding company in which there will be a certain degree of public ownership when the change in the tax law takes effect.
No one knows how much of ABP will be owned by the public when the new tax law change becomes effective. As the Under-Secretary says, it might be possible quickly to sell 49 per cent. of the new company to private buyers. We do not know who the private buyers will be. If the 49 per cent. were purchased by a shipping company, for example, certain Conservative Members might take a different view of the arrangement from the one that they would adopt if the shares were dispersed in 5 per cent. lots among the various insurance companies and pension funds. Indeed, we on the Labour Benches might take a different view as well in those circumstances.
In Committee, upon questioning the Under-Secretary we discovered that the Government had no intention of being bound to retaining 51 per cent. of the shares. They want to be free to sell 60 per cent, 70 per cent or perhaps even 100 per cent. of the shares—the last amounting to total denationalisation. If the Government want to put that proposition to the House we shall be happy to debate it. However, on Second Reading most of us were led to believe that the Government would maintain a majority stake in the holding company. As a democratically elected body we are entitled to assume that the Government are

not immune from the arguments advanced in the House about what is an appropriate arrangement for ownership and control of the BTDB, which is just about the only remaining collection of ports to be operating profitably against fierce competition at a time of world economic crisis.
There is no financial provision in clauses 13 and 14 or schedule 4 of the Transport Bill for the tax arrangement described by the Under-Secretary this evening. Those seem to be the only parts of the Bill purporting to contain provisions consequent upon the BTDB becoming Associated British Ports, the wholly owned subsidiary of the holding company.
The financial and explanatory memorandum indicates a different arrangement. The House is entitled to work on the assumption that when the Government drafted the Transport Bill they considered the financial and manpower implications and put them before the House in the explantory and financial memorandum. The memorandum states:
The British Transport Docks Board's capital liabilities to the Minister of Transport which amount at present to £81 million will be extinguished. They will be replaced by the shares and securities which the Holding Company, owning … (the reconstituted British Transport Docks Board) issues to the Minister. In place of the present fixed interest payments to the National Loans Fund of approximately£5 million in 1980–81, there will be provision for payment into the Consolidated Fund of dividends and any other payments which the Minister receives as owner of shares or securities in the Holding Company.
It is reasonable to suggest that in Committee we had every right to assume that that was the financial arrangement between the reconstituted British Transport Docks Board and the Treasury. In other words, the dividends were to be paid directly. It is now proposed that there should be another taxation arrangement.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point. That financial memorandum still applies to dividends or other payments that the Minister receives as the owner of shares or securities in the holding company. The holding company was always a Companies Act company. As long as it remains wholly owned by the Minister, or as long as the Minister owns 51 per cent. of the shares, any income that he receives as a shareholder of the holding company will be paid into the Consolidated Fund. It is public money and it does not go personally to the Minister.
The Ways and Means resolution refers to any payments that are made by Associated British Ports to the holding company. It makes it clear that they will be treated as if they were dividends paid by one Companies Act company to another. That will merely involve payments from ABP to the holding company. As regards the financial memorandum, if the holding company pays anything in turn to the Minister it will be paid into the Consolidated Fund. That is how the public will benefit from the Minister's holding.

Mr. Booth: I had thought that the Under-Secretary was a step ahead. However, I am now sorry that I gave way. I am not arguing whether the dividends from the holding company will be paid to the Minister. Some of them will go to the Minister and some to whoever has purchased shares. It depends on how much of the holding company is sold. However, the House gave the Bill a Second Reading and accepted the financial resolution. It was entitled to assume that all the dividends of the wholly owned subsidiary would go to the holding company.
The Minister made it clear that that was not the Government's intention. If that had been their intention on Second Reading they could have made it clear in the financial resolution at that time. They did not. If they have changed their minds since then and want to alter the financial provisions, this is not the correct way to do it. They should accept the limitations that they, like others who debate legislation, are placed under in accordance with the terms of the financial resolution accepted on Second Reading. Any straightforward reading of that financial memorandum shows that there are limitations. I challenge the Under-Secretary to find anything in the financial and explanatory memorandum which suggests that the dividends paid by the holding company are anything other than the total dividends which will be declared in the first instance by Associated British Ports or the reconstituted British Transport Docks Board until the holding company begins other activities.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I shall try again to explain to the right hon. Gentleman, who has got himself into the most unbelievable muddle.
The financial resolution in the original Bill refers merely to any payments that the Minister receives as owner of the shares or securities of the holding company. All that that resolution was meant to do was to make it clear that anything that the Minister receives as a holder of shares in the holding company belongs to the public and goes to the Consolidated Fund and not to the Minister. That remains true. The income that he receives from the holding company will depend on what proportion of the equity he holds at any given time. That is all that that covers.
The financial resolution makes no reference to payments made by Associated British Ports to the holding company because, as we all knew throughout, Associated British Ports remains a wholly owned subsidiary of the holding company, so all payments made by ABP were always destined to go to the holding company and they will continue to go to it.
The ways and means resolution paves the way to ensure that when dividends are paid from ABP to the holding company those payments will be treated as dividends for Companies Act purposes.

Mr. Booth: It is the Under-Secretary of State who has not understood the point. I put it to him in two ways. First, on Second Reading the House was entitled to assume, having read the financial resolution, that dividends were the dividends of the holding company and that since the holding company would initially have but one activity, one wholly owned subsidiary, and no other activities, although it was a Companies Act company, they would he the dividends paid by the reconstituted British Transport Docks Board.
If the Under-Secretary now says that the House was expected to assume that the dividends might not be, and that part may be paid in taxation or would be liable to tax before they reached the holding company, he is entitled to make that assertion. If he was entitled to make that assertion and to assume that, why was no provision made in the Bill for that sort of payment? There was no such provision, and that is the reason for the motion. The Government have either made a mistake or changed their financial judgment.
One other consideration became apparent in Committee. Associated British Ports may not be directly

owned by the holding company. Under the provisions of clause 13, as we found in Committee, the holding company can nominate another company to take charge of Associated British Ports. If the Secretary of State does not use his 51 per cent. to instruct or tell the holding company what to do, those who purchase any shares can decide that instead of owning Associated British Ports directly they can nominate another company to own it. In those circumstances even the financial resolution would not necessarily enable the Government to tax the dividends of that company. All they can do is to tax the dividends paid to the holding company. That is not a major consideration, but it is one of the effects of the Bill.
Since we started to debate the Bill it has become clear that those who buy shares in the holding company will control it. They will control payments made by ABP and instruct it accordingly. They can instruct ABP what the charges should be. If shipping companies buy in to the holding company, that may influence the way in which they instruct ABP. Having failed to make provision in the Bill, the Government should withdraw the motion until the Bill has been passed and allow the House to decide in a subsequent Finance Bill whether we should have special tax legislation to deal with the matter.
If the Secretary of Stale wants to control payments made by ABP to the holding company, and I can understand why he may wish to do so, his 51 per cent. shareholding will enable him to instruct ABP how much it should pay until the House can deal with the financial effects and taxation consequences of the Bill in the proper way.
I believe that the Secretary of State wants to evade the responsibility of instructing the holding company. He does not want any financial responsibility for ports policy, any more than he wants direct responsibility for the way in which British ports are run. For that reason, we shall oppose the motion.

Mr. James Hill: We are making a mountain out of a molehill on this simple motion. The Opposition Front Bench have created confusion because they are unaware of some of the vital points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary in Committee.
My hon. and learned. Friend gave way on the consideration of the Secretary of State's holding 51 per cent. of the shares in the holding company. I suggested that a number of those shares could be given to the work force in the ports. We referred to the British Aerospace form of flotation. A firm commitment had been given that 51 per cent. of the shares would be held by the Secretary of State, but in trying to get a share issue to cover not only the dock labour force but ancillary workers in the ports, I was happy to agree that my right hon. Friend might wish to reduce his holding. There was not too much protest from the Opposition over that provision, because they realised equality of the British Aerospace flotation and both sides of the House want to see a similar flotation and a similar equality in the share issue of ABP.
The holding company was clearly defined in Committee. I had no doubt that my right hon. Friend would set up the holding company and could nominate another company to take over its responsibilities, perhaps at a later date. The decisions were perhaps a little obscured because the holding company, the flotation of shares and


perhaps the whole mechanism of forming the subsidiary will be delayed until after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
Both sides of the Committee wanted a clearer definition, but it became clear that my right hon. Friend was aware of some hesitation among his hon. Friends about the fact that he would retain 51 per cent. of the shares and perhaps reduce that holding at a later stage. There was no firm commitment in Committee to the 51 per cent.
We made the point several times about the greatest spread of shares to cover the fears of some of the dock labour force that large shareholdings would, from the beginning, be in the hands of very few people. We also agreed in Committee that it was not possible for my right hon. Friend to lay down a hard and fast rule about where the shares in the subsidiary should lie forever. If people, given a free share issue, care to sell them on the open market, there is no way in which my right hon. Friend can prevent the shares being accumulated if the purchaser so wishes. It is fairly clear to me that hard and fast rules can be made for the first day when the flotation is formed. From then on, the market place will begin to take over. The market place will take over only if Associated British Ports still return the good figures on capital of the last two or three years. It lies with the work force and with the management—the holding company will determine the first board—which will be able to go into other areas of work practice. These are outlined clearly in schedule 3.
This is a point that gave rise to some interesting debates in Committee. It did not seem to me that if the Department had made a genuine omission the House would be so dogmatic that it would not respect the motion tonight. The Transport Bill represented an enormous volume of work for both Front Benches. Given the time available, the depth of debate and the fact that we are discussing an evolution in port management, I believe that the motion should be approved. I am sure that that would be the right decision.

Mr. Iain Mills: It is with some hesitation that I address the House on this matter. I was a member of the Standing Committee that examined various matters in the Transport Bill. That afforded a full and free opportunity to contribute views on various aspects of the Bill, including the affairs of the British Transport Docks Board. I do not include in my experience quite the same expertise in financial management as is evidenced by other hon. Members on both sides of the House. I feel however, that as a Member of the Standing Committee it is correct that I exercise my right to speak tonight and to raise a number of small problems.
The words of the motion state:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the reconstitution of the British Transport Docks Board and to confer on a company powers over that body corresponding to the powers of a holding company over a wholly-owned subsidiary".
Those words are not particularly easy to understand. The fundamentals behind the words are, however, important. In terms of philosophy, the motion bears closely upon the twin innovations achieved by the Government in their relationship with industry. It is important to understand

these innovations when examining the way in which the fiscal tax and other matters will be reconstituted by amendments introduced through the motion.
First, I ask my hon. and learned Friend to compare the proposed mechanism for selling shares in Associated British Ports—previously the British Transport Docks Board—with the mechanism for the sale of shares in the National Freight Corporation, British Aerospace, and British Rail subsidiaries. Two innovations have been introduced by this Government. First, there has been the denationalising of public assets into a more competitive market through privatisation and, equally important, the demonopolisation enshrined in the term "liberalisation." I realise that Opposition Members are stirred by my rhetoric. They spent many happy hours listening to me in Committee, and no doubt they are looking forward to a lengthy intervention from me now. However, I must disappoint them, because what I wish to say is simple and of necessity superficial, because I lack their grasp of the financial aspects. As an honest man of industry, not as a high-powered financier, it is perhaps better that I should ask those questions rather than those who consider themselves economic intellectuals.
I apologise for being distracted from this important Ways and Means motion. I have spent long nights and days on not just one but two Transport Bills. I was delighted that the Bill finished on Thursday. However, the Iron and Steel Bill is now in Committee, and I seem to be almost permanently in Committee. I therefore feel that I must go into some detail on this occasion.
The Government would not bring a motion of this nature before the House unless they were convinced of its necessity. If the Government can create these innovations of privatisation and liberalisation it is only fair to allow them, in this Ways and Means motion, the mechanism to do so.
Some aspects of my hon. and learned Friend's speech caused me anxiety. I ask him to define more clearly Companies Act companies. In Committee and on the Floor of the House it is easy to discuss Companies Act companies as if the term were enshrined and could not be challenged. However, it is difficult for laymen like myself to understand the commitments.

Mr. John Prescott: Being a business man.

Mr. Mills: As a business man, I want to know exactly the liabilities of a Companies Act company. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend will explain the matter to me.
I also want to know how ownership relates to our discussions in Committee. I come back to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend about capital and the obligations of Associated British Ports. On 24 February my hon. and learned Friend was not prepared to go into detail about how the 49 per cent. shareholding was to be sold. However, he took notice, as he always does, of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), who is very knowledgeable in this respect.
In Committee we discussed the possibility of a substantial employee shareholding in the company. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will refer to that. My hon. and learned Friend said that the Government would have to examine that but that it was not possible to give precise details.
The name of the new corporaion is important. It is strange that Opposition Members were so full of opposition to the new name for the British Transport Docks Board that they voted on many occasions against the name proposed by my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate), and Southampton, Test and myself. I have an interest in the matter. We believe that it is just that the name "Associated British Ports" should be brought to the attention of Opposition Members who are muttering from a sedentary position—to coin a phrase in parliamentary language.
Do the Government intend to sell part of the 51 per cent. share at some time'? The Government have said that initially they propose to sell 49 per cent. There is no quick reaction to that, so perhaps I am wrong. Would the company really have to fulfil its statutory duties? My hon. and learned Friend alarmed me when he said that it would have certain obligations to ships. What are those obligations? Are they to supply clean linen and fresh food, or is some other unreasonable obligation involved? Opposition Members may laugh, but the issue is important to people who work on ships. Opposition Members should take an interest.
Can the Minister define a wholly owned subsidiary of a holding company? I find the concept difficult to grasp. As someone who is green to the economic facts of life I do not fully understand the obligations of wholly owned subsidiaries and holding companies. It would be for the benefit of the House and for people who work for the British Transport Docks Board—now named Associated British Ports—to have the Minister's comments.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I wish to exercise the unusual right of a Back Bencher to comment on the quality of the debate. If I were the judge I should decide the debate in favour of the Minister. A mistake has obviously been made by my hon. and learned Friend and the Department of Transport in producing a Bill without the proper financial element. Perhaps I shall be corrected about there being a mistake, but such a mistake does not invalidate what the Government seek.
I have always been suspicious of Government-owned companies in which the Government own 51 per cent. What happens to the 49 per cent. minority holding? The Government obviously have a massive majority and can dictate everything that happens.
The resolution is directed at a narrow point—that the new organisation should enjoy rights and privileges similar to thoseof a limited liability company. The subsidiaries of a limited liability company, wholly or majority-owned, pass dividends between the subsidiary companies to the owning company without being taxed on those dividends. That is a reasonable proposition. I am sure that the House will agree to it without Division or further delay.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) touched on the one valid point that was raised by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth)—why the motion has been tabled at this stage. Obviously there has been a change of intention on the part of the Government in producing at this stage a Ways and Means resolution which will pave the way for amendments which will be taken on Report.
These taxation provisions were always intended. It always was intended that the holding company and Associated British Ports should both be treated as Companies Act companies for taxation purposes, but there was a choice of legislative vehicle—on the one hand, the Finance Bill and, on the other, the Transport Bill, which we now propose to use. The difficulty that has arisen is a timetabling difficulty in terms of allowing the House to consider the details properly.
The Finance Bill and the Transport Bill are passing parallel through the House, and I am glad to say that the Transport Bill is at the moment in the lead, and with some difficulty has held its lead so far. There would be considerable difficulty in tabling the necessary amendments to the Finance Bill dealing with the taxation treatment of companies which were themselves being created by another provision which at that stage was proceeding elsewhere in the House. Therefore, as it was obvious that the Transport Bill was about to go to its last stage in this House before the Finance Bill had anything like completed its Committee stage, we decided to use the Transport Bill as the legislative vehicle for the purpose of making these tax provisions clear.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness appears to believe that we are making great changes in the tax law without the House having the opportunity to consider them. He is very fond of seeing great constitutional significance in comparatively minor procedural points. There are no great constitutional points here. The Ways and Means resolution is needed merely to pave the way for the amendments themselves to be taken, and the House, of course, in its debate and voting—if necessary—on the amendments will have the opportunity of exercising parliamentary judgment on the Government's proposals. It makes no practical difference and no constitutional difference whether these taxation changes are made in a Finance Bill or in a Transport Bill.
The taxation changes are perfectly straightforward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage has just made clear, they merely enable the taxation arrangements for the holding company and Associated British Ports to be exactly the same as they would be if they were both Companies Act companies—no better and no worse in either case. The only effects will be that as a group under the holding company it is possible that there will be some group or consortium relief available for corporation tax purposes in certain circumstances; and if any payments are made, as we trust they will be, by Associated British Ports to the holding company which owns it, those payments will be subject to advance corporation tax payments because they will be treated as if they were dividends for corporation tax purposes.
No one suggested any other arrangement by which these companies could be dealt with for taxation purposes. It is arguable that they would be dealt with in that way whether or not we legislated. What the amendments will do if the House subsequently approves them will be to make that position clear beyond doubt.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that during the last hour we have had a rather remarkable demonstration of anger from the Opposition Benches which might have been averted had the Government taken the trouble to produce an explanatory memorandum to the Ways and Means resolution rather similar to that which accompanies Bills?


All the anger has been misdirected. The point is a very narrow one. All would have been clear had the Government explained the position.

Mr. Clarke: That is possibly the case. I am quite prepared to accept that stricture and apologise for the omission. Had he been present throughout the debate my hon. Friend would have seen the danger of providing explanatory memoranda to the Opposition Front Bench because many weeks later hon. Gentlemen rise with a puzzled frown and completely misunderstand the arrangements that have been made in the Bill as printed in the first place. There was some difficulty on the previous financial memorandum.
Nevertheless, I hope that we have now made the position clear. I confirm to my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who supported this policy throughout the Committee stage, that this does not reflect any underlying change of policy and that there is no difference between the present policy of the Government and the policy of the Government as expounded on Second Reading, despite what the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness said. Once the Bill has obtained Royal Assent the Minister will create a holding company which will be a wholly owned Companies Act company, and that holding company will be the sole owner of Associated British Ports. Thereafter, as soon as is reasonable, he will float the holding company and sell up to 49 per cent. of the shares. The 49 per cent. will be retained by the Government for the foreseeable future, but we cannot give ourselves a timeless guarantee. We are anxious to make room for workers' shareholdings of exactly the kind that was mentioned.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 93.

Division No. 149]
[10.00


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Ancram, Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert
Cope, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Costain, Sir Albert


Bendall, Vivian
Cranborne, Viscount


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Best, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dover, Denshore


Biffen, Rt Hon John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Blackburn, John
Emery, Peter


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Eyre, Reginald


Bowden, Andrew
Fairgrieve, Russell


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bright, Graham
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Brinton, Tim
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Brittan, Leon
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brotherton, Michael
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Goodlad, Alastair


Buck, Antony
Gow, Ian


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gray, Hamish


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Greenway, Harry


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)





Gummer, John Selwyn
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hawksley, Warren
Pattie, Geoffrey


Heddle, John
Percival, Sir Ian


Hicks, Robert
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Rathbone, Tim


Howells, Geraint
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Tim


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rhodes James, Robert


Jessel, Toby
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rifkind, Malcolm


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Kilfedder, James A.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rossi, Hugh


Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Keith


Loveridge, John
Speller, Tony


Luce, Richard
Spence, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Sproat, Iain


Macfarlane, Neil
Squire, Robin


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stainton, Keith


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Stanbrook, Ivor


McQuarrie, Albert
Stevens, Martin


Major, John
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Marlow, Tony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mates, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Mather, Carol
Thornton, Malcolm


Mawby, Ray
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Trippier, David


Mayhew, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Mellor, David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Viggers, Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Moate, Roger
Waller, Gary


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Watson, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Wells, Bowen


Murphy, Christopher
Wheeler, John


Myles, David
Wickenden, Keith


Neale, Gerrard
Wilkinson, John


Needham, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Newton, Tony



Onslow, Cranley
Tellers for the Ayes:


Osborn, John
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Donald Thompson.


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Dixon, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Dormand, Jack


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Dubs, Alfred


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Eadie, Alex


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
English, Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, John (Newton)


Carmichael, Neil
Field, Frank


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fitt, Gerard


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Flannery, Martin


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Cook, Robin F.
Foster, Derek


Cowans, Harry
George, Bruce


Craigen, J. M.
Gourlay, Harry


Cryer, Bob
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Dalyell, Tam
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Davidson, Arthur
Haynes, Frank


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Home Robertson, John






Homewood, William
Newens, Stanley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur


Lamond, James
Pendry, Tom


Lestor, Miss Joan
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Prescott, John


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Richardson, Jo


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


McElhone, Frank
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Snape, Peter


Marks, Kenneth
Soley, Clive


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Maxton, John
Stoddart, David


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Morton, George
Tilley, John





Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Young, David (Bolton E)


Welsh, Michael



White, Frank R.
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)
Mr. Joseph Dean and Mr. James Tinn.


Winnick, David



Woolmer, Kenneth

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the reconstitution of the British Transport Docks Board and to confer on a company powers over that body corresponding to the powers of a holding company over a wholly-owned subsidiary, it is expedient to authorise any charge to tax attributable to provisions treating as dividends payments made by that body to that company.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Member's Salaries may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Mather.]

Members of Parliament (Salaries)

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the following provisions about salaries of Members of this House be made:—
The salary payable to Members of each of the descriptions in the first column of the following Table—
(a) in respect of service on and after 13 June 1980 and before 13 June 1981 shall be at the yearly rate specified in relation to that description in the second column of that Table; and
(b) in respect of service on and after 13 June 1981 shall be at the yearly rate specified in relation to that description in the third column of that Table.

Table


Description of Member
Yearly rate of salary from 13 June 1980 to 12 June 1981
Yearly rate of salary from 13 June 1981



£
£


1. Member not within paragraph 2
11,750
13,150


2. Officer of this House or Member receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972
6,930
7,670


—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Mr. David Stoddart: I understand that the purpose of the motion is to enable the salaries of EuroAssembly persons to be increased in line with the salaries of Members of this House. As the Minister did not explain the motion, no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong. I shall confine my remarks to what I believe that the motion means.
When the salaries of Members of the European Assembly were first agreed, I believe that I voted against them. However, the House decided otherwise. I remain of the opinion that the European Assembly has only a marginal role, if it has one at all. It has no legislative powers. It has no real decision-making powers. It has no powers of taxation. This House has the responsibility for raising all taxes paid over to the EEC.
According to a written answer that was given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on Wednesday 1 April, since 1973 we have paid in taxation to the EEC £4,069 million. That money has been raised by taxing the British people; and it is this House that takes responsibility for such taxation. It is this place that faces the aggro from the voters who have to pay these taxes and who believe that these huge sums are paid to the EEC for no good purpose save for those who think that extremely high food prices are good in themselves.
The European Assembly meets for only two weeks out of four. It does not really have the powers of a parish council. We do not pay parish councils anything, but

perhaps we should be charitable and accept that we should pay European Assembly persons a nominal fee rather than a salary.
In struggling to find a role for themselves, Members of the European Assembly seem to be swanning all over the place. This is happening at great expense to the European taxpayer. We heard that the cost was £250,000 a time for one trip by about 16 Members and 60 advisers and interpreters. Members of the European Assembly visit the Lomé countries. The purpose of that I do not know, as the Lomé countries have permanent representatives in Brussels. They negotiate between the Commission and the Council of Ministers, which are the powerful bodies in the EEC.
Some Members of the European Assembly are so anxious to find a role that, even now, they wish to discuss with representatives from other countries such as Germany, France, Denmark and Italy, matters for which the House has absolute responsibility and power. One of these members wants to discuss the British Nationality Bill which is now in Committee. However, those matters are not for those countries but for this sovereign Parliament to which Members of the European Assembly are subject. They depend on its consent for their continued existence.
We know that Conservative right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about the expenditure of public money and that they wish to curtail it. This expenditure will increase public expenditure by the Government in payment of salaries and will be additional to the £125 million which is spent by the European Assembly every year—that is about three times what is spent in this Parliament—on what is a useless body, as we would say if we were honest about it.
I always have believed that there is no need for that Assembly. Ministers are accountable to this House and this House alone. I wish that some of my hon. Friends in the Labour Party who are members of the European Assembly would make it clear to the European Assembly that it has no role. They should press for its disbandment. If they did that, they would be doing a real job in accordance with party policy, which would comply with the wishes of most people in this country.
Having reiterated my position—possibly ad nauseam—I do not intend to vote against the motion because we gave an undertaking to Members of the European Assembly that their salaries would be tied to the salaries of Members of this House. Parliament should not rat on a decision which it took a little while ago. Therefore, I shall not vote against the motion, but I hope that I have made my view clear, that we are throwing good money after bad.

Mr. Alan Clark: The House is considering this problem because of an oversight—with which we all sympathise—by the Home Office, as a result of which the salaries for the Members of the European Assembly were not confirmed at the same time as our own. We understand that there was no malevolence in that oversight. Nevertheless, it gives the House a welcome opportunity—albeit an accidental one—to consider the performance of the Assembly men before we confirm their salaries, and the extent to which they have justified the salaries which we will be asked to vote for them.
We all have our views about the identity and adequacy of Members of the European Assembly. We realise that the


large majority originally hoped and intended to come to this place. For various reasons, probably not unattributable to their personality or acceptability, they were rejected by the various bodies charged with the task of selecting candidates to contest general elections. As we know, they failed and subsequently found consolation in being confirmed as Members of an Assembly whose functions are largely nugatory and meaningless.
The next stage that those persons entered into, readily and greedily, was to try to ensure unlimited access to this place. Although they were not elected, they none-the-less by back-door devices tried to ensure that they were allowed to move freely in this place, as if they had been elected. Thankfully, and due to the corporate wisdom of the House, that has so far been rejected and, I believe, will continue to be rejected by the House.
Simultaneously, those persons moved to a second condition of—if I may use the language of the Common Market, and in this case the House may consider it appropriate—Folie de Grandeur. They sought to ensure for themselves an immunity in the passage of customs.
In parenthesis, may I say that it is curious that the majority party as returned to the European Assembly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. We are debating the proposed salary increase. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Clark: I am greatly obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding me of that, but you will appreciate that, when considering the proposed increase in salaries, the House has also to consider whether these—I do not know the generic term for them—

Mr. Tom Pendry: Rejects.

Mr. Clark: —are worthy. We should, therefore, scrutinise generally whether they are worthy of the increase.
Another factor which these persons were not slow in seeking to establish—and it was reported in The Times as recently as yesterday—was immunities. They have sought to establish that they should be immune from arrest and prosecution, under the common law and statute of the countries in which they commit an offence, should they do so. That is another example of their attempt to elevate themselves above even the status of Members of this House.

Mr. Michael English: Is it a question of their trying to arrogate themselves above Members of this House or believing themselves to be more likely to commit offences?

Mr. Clark: It would be inappropriate—and I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would rule it out of order—to speculate on that. However, Members of the European Assembly who have been charged with common law or statutory offences have sought to avoid arrest or punishment by seeking to establish an immunity dependent on their status.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the remuneration of Members of the European Parliament.

Mr. English: It is a point of law in this country that nobody can benefit by a criminal offence.

Mr. Clark: In certain circles, it might be thought that a perk or attribute of a particular office that is remunerated would be that it carried immunity from prosecution or arrest. As these "characters"—I use that generic terra as it embraces both females and males—have sought to establish free passage through customs, and immunity from arrest and detention as perquisites of their office, it seems to me that they have moved some way towards elevating themselves to a status where the House might seriously question whether it can vote, without considerable discussion and examination, on the advisability of ranking them with ourselves in financial terms.

Mr. Bob Cryer: This proposal should not pass without comment. Our salary increases were accepted and agreed last year. It is highly misleading to place upon the Order Paper an item relating to
provisions about salaries of Members of this House
without indicating that it is in fact designed to allow the salaries of European Assembly Members to be increased. Such a provision should not be allowed to pass without some comment on the merits of the increase.
Many Labour Members and a few Conservative Members opposed the European Assembly elections in principle. As it happened, so did the people. The turn-out was abysmally low because people did not understand or care about it and instinctively recognised that it was merely a talking shop which would have no effect at all. It is interesting to compare the level of participation in United Kingdom elections with that in the Euro-elections. As an indication of the nature and content of the power of this place as compared with the European Assembly, long may there continue to be a much greater participation in our elections than in European Assembly elections.
It is worth reminding the House that the legislation for the European Assembly elections was passed by the Labour Government only on the threat of Labour Ministers being sacked if they voted for Labour Party policy. The Labour Party opposed the European Assembly elections because it viewed the Assembly as no more than a democratic facade to paste over a highly anti-democratic and bureaucratic operation known as the Common Market in which the Assembly has no power. Power is wielded in secret by commissioners and councils of Ministers which have in effect the power of legislation and which meet behind closed doors. We felt at that time and many of us feel now and, indeed, the Labour Party still maintains the attitude—that the Assembly is no more than a talking shop to give some kind of democratic respectability to a system that is otherwise highly anti-democratic.
One looks askance at the percentage increase. One can make the point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), that an undertaking was given that a link would be maintained. The question of dividing the House may not therefore arise. However, we should issue a warning that the way in which opinion in the Labour Party and the country at large is developing is leading to our disentanglement from the Common Market. That would mean withdrawal from the bureaucratic apparatus of the Commission and of the Council of Ministers, and from the European Assembly.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Where is the hon. Member's internationalism?

Mr. Cryer: Our view has always been that the world does not stop at the boundaries of the Common Market. Our internationalism spreads across the world. It is not confined to the inward-looking trading arrangements of the Common Market.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not be provoked by interventions. He must stick to the motion that is before the House.

Mr. Cryer: Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker for your protection against the savage attacks of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I hope that I shall retain your indulgence long enough to explain that the Labour Party is an international Socialist Party which looks beyond the boundaries of a narrow trading organisation which shelters behind parity.
There is without doubt a mood in the country, reflected in Labour Party policy, to the effect that the United Kingdom should withdraw from the Common Market. That is one issue that we should be debating here and outside the House. We can do it here by making clear that the Assembly represents nothing more than a hollow talking shop.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman spoke of the assurances given about the linking of salaries. How do the expenses given to a Member of the European Parliament compare with those paid here?

Mr. Cryer: I was about to come on to that point.
The increase in the motion constitutes a percentage that the Civil Service would greatly welcome. Civil servants are at the moment fighting an industrial action to try to secure a decent increase.
The expenses which the Members of the European Assembly receive are, by all accounts, lavish. In addition, they enjoy expensive and well-organised trips provided at the expense of the Community. They jet all over the place on highly costly fact-finding trips in a manner which seems unnecessary and ostentatious. We are right to criticise the ostentatious activities of some—though not all—of these Members.
We should therefore make our opposition clear tonight. We should put down a marker for the future and show that we recognise that the European Assembly is meaningless. We should show that we recognise that the Common Market has done nothing but damage to this country and that there are means of maintaining trading relations with Common Market countries without our getting entangled in their bureaucratic structure.
We could work together with other countries—not only the Common Market countries—as equals but not as subordinates to a bureaucratic structure to which the European Assembly lends no democratic credibility.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I hate to disrupt—even briefly—the beautiful harmony that exists over the salaries to be paid to European Members of Parliament. However, it would be a pity if no voice were raised to correct some of the misconceptions that linger on, even in the mind of so brilliant, so well-informed, judicious and wise a speaker as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark).
In case my hon. Friend does not understand, I should explain that there are some female European Members of Parliament. Not all its members have been rejected by this

House. Some were elected to this House but chose to retire. I think of Mrs. Barbara Castle and Sir James Scott-Hopkins. They are elected to their position in the same way as we are. They are worthy of the salaries that they receive, if only because of the extremely good work that they do in the European Parliament. They put across the Government's policies as well as those of the Labour Party—if it has any. Indeed, if the Labour Party's reputation in Europe is not as low as it might be, it is due more to the activities of some of its members in Strasbourg than to anything that we may hear from Opposition Members.

Mr. Alan Clark: rose—

Sir Anthony Meyer: I shall not give way. My hon. Friend made a long speech and I shall make a short one.

Mr. Clark: rose—

Sir Anthony Meyer: I have no intention of giving way. Members of the European Parliament are elected in exactly the same way as we are. Admittedly, they are not of the tremendous intellectual calibre of the speakers that we have heard tonight. Nevertheless, Members of the European Parliament include men such as Sir Henry Plumb, Sir Frederick Catherwood and Basil de Ferranti. Therefore I am not talking about the ultimate in nit-wits.
If anyone reads the Official Report, he will not be immensely impressed by the breadth of vision displayed by the Mother of Parliaments.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I should like to attack this subject from a different angle. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) made his usual first-class contribution. He made a first-rate attack on the European Parliament and on Great Britain's membership of the EEC.
The salaries of Members of Parliament and of European Members of Parliament involve public expenditure. We hear a lot about public expenditure from the Government Dispatch Box. They say that they were elected to reduce public expenditure and, thereby, inflation, in the interests of the nation and of the economy. That is the approach that I shall adopt. The Government should be ashamed of themselves and of the vindictive policies that they have imposed on the nation's workers. After all, it is the workers who pay these salaries.
I remember the debate on the salaries of Members of Parliament. I did not have the opportunity to make a speech on that_ occasion. I am seizing the opportunity tonight, because I am seething like my constituents who come to my surgery regularly complaining about the way in which they are being hit. We had a massive unemployment lobby not long ago. For example, the pensioners were told that the Government would rake back 1 per cent. of their pension increase next time. Yet here we can afford to discuss increases of this size for European Members of Parliament because it is linked with the figure that we shall enjoy ourselves.[Interruption] I thought that the unruliness was on the other side, but it appears to affect Labour Members as well. The awful, vindictive policies of the Government make Al Capone look like a saint. However, we are discussing the increases that European Members of Parliament will enjoy. I want to make it clear that in no way shall I vote against the order, but an agreement was reached last year and I shall not breach that


or rat on it. felt that I should make my feelings clear about what is happening to the people we are supposed to represent. We are crucifying them at the same time—[Interruption.] I am talking about the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The hon. Gentleman should be talking about Member's salaries, not about the Government.

Mr. Haynes: I am trying to explain how the Government raise the finance to be able to pay the increase proposed by the motion. Some Conservative Members have very short memories. I try to remember many of the things that are said. When people are told that they can have only a certain percentage increase, when we are supposed to have free collective bargaining, we should not be doing this. This is a massive increase compared with the increases some of our workers enjoyed in the last pay round. It is totally unfair.
The Government should come clean and have more fairness in their policy on behalf of the workers of this nation whom we represent in this place.

Mr. George Cunningham: The House has a number of opportunities, though not enough, to debate the affairs of the European Community, but not many of them allow the House to address itself to the relationship between this place and the European Assembly. We could do with some opportunities to do so. I do not think that the motion presents the proper opportunity to do so, and I want to speak for only a minute or two on the very narrow subject matter and purpose of the motion.
In 1979 we passed the European Assembly (Pay and Pensions) Act, which laid down that the salary of a European Member of Parliament should be the same as that for the time being paid to a British Member of Parliament. That decision, taken in the Council of Ministers—questionably legal, I might say—was very much at the instigation of Britain. Therefore, we have an obligation to do whatever is necessary to implement it. Of course, everybody thought that we had done what was necessary to implement it, but a mistake has been made—not for the first time in the general context of motions relating to Members' salaries. The money that we are talking about is already in payment to European Members, as it is to Members of this House.
If the Government had done the sensible thing in July and August, we would not be faced with the difficulty of retrospectively authorising something which has been going on, without proper authority, for about nine months. The House had two motions before it in July, an opinion-expressing motion and an effective motion. Hon. Members who took part in that debate may recollect that when we carried amendments to the opinion-expressing motion I suggested, not speaking in a home affairs capacity, that the Leader of the House should withdraw the second motion and bring it back suitably amended. If he had done that, we would not be in the present mess. Unfortunately, when the motion came back it did not repeat the terms used in the previous July, and so the mistake has grown up.
I hope that the Minister of State, Home Office will pass on to the Leader of the House the view that it would be useful if he would consider all the complications that have

arisen from the 1972 Act dealing with Members' pensions. It was from the sloppy drafting of that Act that the difficulties that have culminated in the motion arose. Because of the way in which that Act was drafted, we normally have to pass motions on this subject in a cumbersome manner, with two motions instead of one. That was the only way of getting out of the difficulty that was belatedly discovered in about 1978, but it is not an easy way of dealing with things.
The motion on the Order Paper ought to be passed. It does no more than do for European Members what we do for ourselves, which is required by the Act that Parliament has passed. It does no more than to repeat the terms of the motion that the House passed in June in respect of our own salaries, and there is no reason why it should not be passed without opposition.

The Minister of State. Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I cannot complain, particularly as I have enjoyed it, at the fact that hon. Members have taken full advantage of the rich opportunities that the legislative slip referred to by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has afforded them. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not range as wide as some other hon. Members but address myself to the narrow point that the hon. Member has discussed, because it is the guts of the motion.
The purpose of the motion is to correct a technical error relating to the salaries of United Kingdom representatives in the European Assembly. [t does not change the salaries, pensions or allowances of Members of this House and it does not alter the terms under which the House has determined, in legislation, to pay the salaries and pensions of United Kingdom representatives in the European Parliament.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am trying to be helpful, but I find it hard to understand why we are debating the salaries of Members of the European Parliament on a motion which makes no mention of the European Parliament. It refers solely to the salaries of Members of this Parliament.

Mr. Mayhew: I greatly enjoyed my hon. Friend's speech and I look forward to explaining the point that he has understandably raised.
The need for the resolution is this. Parliament has determined in passing the European Assembly (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979 that Members of the European Assembly should receive the same ordinary salary as Westminster Members save where they hold a dual mandate, in which case they should receive that salary with an addition of one-third of it.
Proposed salaries of Members of this House are set out in motions to approve resolutions of the House of Commons. There are two kinds. The first is an abstract resolution passed as an expression of opinion to which the Government have expressed their agreement, which is sufficient authority to pay the ordinary salaries of Westminster Members. This is because Members' salaries here are paid under the authority of the Appropriation Act out of voted moneys, and an abstract resolution is a sufficient basis for the submission of appropriate Estimates.
The second kind of resolution is one such as that appearing on the Order Paper, known as an effective


resolution that bears the Queen's Recommendation. An effective resolution is an authority that is required to pay the pensions of Members of this House. It is also required in order to pay the salaries of our representatives to the European Assembly. Their salaries are charged on, and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund; and payment requires the authority of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Thus, the salary of a Member of the European Parliament is ascertained by reference to the last effective resolution by the House of Commons on the salaries for Members of the House of Commons. It is complicated, but that is the situation.

Mr. Alan Clark: I am greatly interested in the nomenclature used by my hon. and learned Friend. At the start of his speech he referred to Members of the European Parliament. That is, of course, a solecism. When reading from his text, drafted by goodness-knows-who—they were, however, sticking to the rules of accuracy—he referred consistently to the European Assembly. In the penultimate sentence, he reverted to the term "European Parliament". The correct term is "European Assembly". The concept of the European Parliament is a cosy notion that has been introduced as a way of making the whole idea more acceptable to the public of this country. I am interested in the variation of terms that my hon. and learned Friend uses.

Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend is right. At this time of night, it is rather jolly to vary one's language.
On 21 July 1980, the House carried an abstract resolution on pay to increase the salaries of Members of this House from £10,725 to £11,750 with effect from 13 June 1980.

Mr. English: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for noticing me after some delay. Why did he drag the Comptroller and Auditor General into this issue? The Comptroller and Auditor General is a quasi-autonomous civil servant. It has been suggested that he should be independent, but he is not, in fact, independent. Why was he dragged in?

Mr. Mayhew: The Comptroller and Auditor General does a rather dull job and he likes a mention in the House of Commons from time to time.
The House rejected, however, the related effective resolution bearing the Queen's Recommendation when it rejected the Government's proposal on Members' pensions. An effective resolution to give effect to the pensions increase was finally passed on 19 February this year. This related only to a Westminster Member's pay for pension purposes, his pensionable salary. But the last effective resolution on Westminster Members' salaries was passed on 11 July, 1979.
The lack of any effective later resolution on the salaries of Westminster Members meant that there was no legal authority to pay the increase to representatives of the

European Parliament which had been authorised for Members of this House. Members of the European Assembly are therefore currently entitled to draw only £10,725 a year instead of £11,750 payable to Westminster Members. This was clearly accidental. It was not a deliberate expression of opinion by this House. The fact that there was no proper legal authority came to light in February and was drawn by the Government to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Comptroller informed the Government that it would be necessary to cease paying representatives at the higher rate until an effective resolution had been passed.
It is to remedy that situation that this motion has been introduced. Express provision is made for retrospection in section 1(5) of the 1979 Act. Accordingly, I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. English: Was there a suspension payment during that period?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the Minister had sat down. I called the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) to make a speech.

Mr. English: I thought that I was addressing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was perhaps asking a rhetorical question. It is important to decide whether such questions are rhetorical.
Let us take the Crown Agents. Every payment from the Crown Agents since 1837 was illegal. No one noticed it. Now we are suggesting that some payments may be illegal. Or were they paid? The Minister's statement did not make that clear. He made it clear that the Comptroller and Auditor General should not be paid, but he did not say whether the payment was made.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions about salaries of Members of this House be made:—
The salary payable to Members of each of the descriptions in the first column of the following table—
(a) in respect of service on and after 13 June 1980 and before 13 June 1981 shall be at the yearly rate specified in relation to that description in the second column of that Table; and
(b) in respect of service on and after 13 June 1981 shall be at the yearly rate specified in relation to that description in the third column of that Table.

Description of Member
Yearly rate of salary from 13 June 1980 to 12 June 1981
Yearly rate of salary from 13 June 1981



£
£


1. Member not within paragraph 2
11,750
13,150


2. Officer of this House or Member receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972
6,930
7,670

Northern Ireland (Queen's University of Belfast)

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Queen's University of Belfast (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 25 February, be approved.
The senate of Queen's University of Belfast, has petitioned Her Majesty for a new charter. The new charter has been requested as a result of changes in circumstances since the university was incorporated at the beginning of the century and with a view to the better management of its affairs. The general objective of the revised charter and statutes is to simplify and clarify the statutes and to make their provisions more appropriate to present-day circumstances.
The changes have two main effects. First, the statutes are re-arranged in a more logical order, and unnecessary detail and obsolete provisions have been removed from them. Items likely to be the subject of frequent amendments are also removed, and will now be dealt with by resolution of the senate from time to time as necessary. Secondly, provision is made in the new charter for all categories of academic staff and the student body to have a voice in the academic affairs of the university, and for a reduction in the work load of some of its existing committees.
At every stage in the development of the revision of the charter and statutes the appropriate university bodies were consulted, and they included the students' representative council. It is hoped that the proposed new charter will come into operation in January 1982.
If Her Majesty is pleased to grant the new charter, certain legislation relating to the university will require to be repealed. The order now before the House provides for those repeals. The most important repeals concern the financial arrangements of the university. Those provisions authorise grants payable to the university and require the accounts of the university to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
The provisions relating to the payment of grants no longer serve any effective purpose because the amounts of the grants authorised are deducted from the total figure recommended by the University Grants Committee. At present grants paid by the Department of Education to the university run to over £21 million a year. Of that sum only £60,000 is based upon the statutory authority of the legislation which will be repealed if the order is approved. That is unusual. For the future we propose to rely on the statutory authority of Appropriation orders for all the grants payable to the university by the Department of Education. I reassure the House that payment will be conditional upon the Comptroller and Auditor-General being accorded continued access to the university's books and records.

Mr. Michael English: Which Comptroller and Auditor-General—the United Kingdom one or the Northern Ireland one?

Mr. Patten: I am referring to the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor-General.
The changes will bring Queen's University into line with comparable practice in other United Kingdom

universities. We are not differing from that practice. The provisions of the new charter supersede part of the remaining legislation being repealed while the rest has simply become obsolete with the passage of time.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Tom Pendry: The debate provides the House with an opportunity to discuss the new charter and statutes. It is important to discuss the formation of the senate, as designated in the new statutes and charter and to make a few points about the representation of university staff and students.
I call attention to the time that has being taken in preparing the new charter and statutes and contrast it with the brief consultative procedures. The move to change the charter and statutes began in the late 1960s. The students, who make the university what it is, were allowed to comment on the proposals only after a lengthy legal quibble. Then they had to meet an almost impossible timetable of less than three months. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on what he said about that, because he appears to be wrong.
The trade unions which represent the non-academic employees were not consulted at all. To omit consultation with such interested groups shows that the nineteenth century statutes that we hope to repeal tonight have pervaded attitudes towards students and non-academic staff. There is not much evidence of forward thinking by the Committee that reviews statutes in that respect. I am sorry that the Committee did not follow the practice of most other public and commercial institutes of undertaking close consultation with all interested groups at an early stage.
The Committee erred by acting without prior consultation with groups with an interest in the government of the university. It decided rightly that there was no justification for the anomalous position whereby the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce was represented on the senate when the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions was not. Rather than follow the sensible course and give the unions a seat in the senate, the committee decided that a seat should not be given to either group.
What makes the position rather worrying is that the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce has plenty of opportunities under the provisions of the statutes to gain representation on the senate. For instance, Northern Ireland industry gains a disproportionate representation on the senate through appointments to the executive committee of the better equipment fund. This fund was originally set up to improve equipment at the university in 1908 but is now a dated anachronism. I find it hard, for instance, to understand why the committee on the review of statutes did not consider the backdoor appointments of the fund to the senate to be out of keeping with a twentieth century charter and statutes. In the past the better equipment executive committee has appointed three individuals from the spheres of banking, industry and commerce to sit on the senate, and it appears that that practice is to continue.
I also find it hard to rationalise the situation whereby outsiders have a stronger influence on the governing body of an institution than do certain important groups within that institution, namely, the students and non-academic staff.
A more detailed examination of the proposed form of the new senate reveals some interesting and, in many cases, welcome departures from the existing structure. I would certainly commend those to the House, but they are few. Two members from the non-academic staff are to be elected to sit on the senate, but how they are to be elected is still not clear, and perhaps the Minister will tell us this when he winds up. The problem with this is that a representation of two is insufficient to cover three types of non-academic staff—technical, clerical and manual. In my view, there should be at least one representative for each of these groups and they should be elected through their appropriate trade union machinery.
I also note that there is to be a place on the senate for one member of the student council in addition to the student union representative, and that of course is a welcome move, but considering that there are in excess of 6,000 students in this university. I believe it to be an inadequate representation. There is no justification for the clause which gives voting rights to these representatives only if they are graduates.
I am sorry to note that the representation of the convocation has been increased from eight to 10. Only a very small fraction of the graduates of Queen's are active participants in the current work of the university and I therefore suggest that those extra seats should have gone to the students and the trade union representatives, as I have outlined.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Am I not right in believing that it is a requirement of the University Grants Committee that undergraduate students do not have the right to vote and that it is something that pertains not to the statutes of this university only but to those of all universities?

Mr. Pendry: The point to make is that this is a new charter, which is bringing up into the twentieth century legislation which in many cases, as we see from the order, dates back to the previous century. I am suggesting, and I think it is reasonable to suggest, that this is a great opportunity to make some innovations and to set a trend for the future. There are not too many new charters for universities around at the moment and I think it would be a great opportunity for this university to act in a twentieth century way.
Queen's University is an important academic institution which has made a lasting contribution to the community in Northern Ireland and beyond. I wish it well in the future and I certainly hope that some of the points that I have made will be taken on board by those who will scrutinise the charter once this order is passed by the House, as I hope it will be tonight.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has made some suggestions about the terms of the new Royal charter for the Queen's University of Belfast. I am not quite sure where the university has got to. Is this charter a draft, or is it in its final form? Will account be taken of the suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman and other suggestions which may be made in the debate?
I realise that the Royal charter is more a matter for the prerogative and the Privy Council than for this House.

Nevertheless, the heart of the order is the Royal charter, which I have not seen. I believe that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde must have seen it, because he was referring to what he considers to be omissions from it. Will the charter, whether it be in draft or in a final form, be made available to hon. Members?
I wonder why the university petitioned Her Majesty for a new charter in advance of the main report to be submitted eventually by Sir Henry Chilver, who in December 1978 undertook
to consider the present provision of higher education in Northern Ireland, to review both the general and the particular needs of the Northern Ireland community in the 1980s and 1990s for higher education (including advanced further education) and to make recommedations".
The Chilver committee has, of course, produced an interim report on teacher training. This has, I believe received the approbation of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), but it has also aroused considerable concern in the Roman Catholic community in Northern Ireland. The Government have not yet announced their intentions following the arrival of the interim report. It is something that the House would want to debate, whether in the Northern Ireland Committee or in this Chamber.
But the main report, which we still await from Sir Henry Chilver and his committee, will presumably make proposals for the future of the new University of Ulster at Coleraine and for the Ulster Polytechnic at Jordanstown, as well as for Queen's University, Belfast, which is the subject of the order. What if Chilver makes recommendations which run counter to what is contained in the Royal charter? Will the Royal charter be held for a while, or what will happen? What will happen if Chilver produces recommendations which appear to be excellent and the charter has gone off in a quite different direction?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Despite the two interesting speeches to which the House has just listened, what is before the House in the order is not the charter itself but simply the question whether the repeals set out in the schedule, and certain minor arrangements in the control of the financial support of Queen's University, should be made simultaneously or in connection with the granting of the new charter.
So far as my hon. Friends and I have been able to ascertain, there is in no quarter any disposition to dispute those changes in legislation which are being made by the order. Nevertheless, the short debate so far has thrown up a certain requirement—not as a matter or right but perhaps of courtesy to the House—and that is that the House, and particularly Northern Ireland Members, should be able to have a view of the charter in its proposed form at an appropriate stage. It obviously imports substantial changes, and I mean no implication that there would be any disposition to criticise or seek to change these, but at least there is something curious in our tidying up before or after a charter of the contents of which we have no official knowledge.
That said, I have only one comment to make upon the order itself, and that, I am afraid, is a comment which I too often have occasion to make when such orders come before the House. Article 1 states that the order will come into operation
on such day as the Head of the Department of Education may by order appoint.


Those who prepare, print and present the order to the House know that nothing of the sort will happen. They know that the order will be made by the Secretary of State and not by the non-existent entity the "Head of the Department of Education". That refers to the non-existent constitution which is in suspension by reason of the 1974 Act.
Even if it is obligatory to continue printing in these orders what nobody means and nobody intends shall happen, at least I make a plea once again that the explanatory notes, which presumably, to judge by their name, are intended to explain and accompany the orders, should not repeat the mumbo-jumbo that does not apply but should tell hon. Members—not only Northern Ireland Members but Members generally—what will happen and the procedure that will be followed. That having been said, I welcome the minor tidying-up of the legislation connected with Queen's University which the order effects.
The public support of university education has from a very early period run through the concern of the House with Ireland and subsequently with Northern Ireland. It goes back to the grant to Maynooth under Peel's Administration, which had the bizarre result of bringing about the first resignation of Mr. Gladstone. That was not because he disagreed with the grant to Maynooth—indeed, he agreed with the grant—but because he believed that it was inconsistent with his election address, a kind of conscientiousness that is perhaps somewhat disused today, although it may have its connections with the sort of debate that one understands is going on in the Labour Party.

Mr. English: He was Tory at that time.

Mr. Powell: I am well aware of that. I was not trying to associate Mr. Gladstone directly with the current internal affairs of the Labour Party. I was merely saying that the question of what should be the relationship between what is stated in the manifesto and how those who are elected on that manifesto behave when they are elected is still a live question, even though we do not always today handle it with the same delicacy and subtlety—a subtlety that baffled Sir Robert Peel, who admitted to be completely nonplussed by the attitude of his Vice-President of the Board of Trade in the matter.

Mr. English: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that at the time Gladstone was not elected on any election manifesto.

Mr. Powell: He was elected upon his own manifesto.

Mr. English: No. There was no party manifesto.

Mr. Powell: I did not say that it was a party manifesto. I referred to the manifesto upon which he had been elected, the propositions to his electorate upon which he had been elected as well as the opinions that he had expressed in that extraordinary book "The State in its relations with the Church".
I move on from Maynooth. It is ironical but by no means discreditable that it was in the year of the potato famine that Parliament proceeded to endow the three Queen's colleges of the Queen's University of Ireland as non-sectarian places of university education. In a sense, the structure of universities, other than that of Trinity College, Dublin, has since that time been built upon that provision. That is a fact worth putting on record since there

is so much popular misrepresentation of the concern of the House and of this country for the affairs of Ireland in the period of the famine.
The next statute—I promise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I will not go through them seriatim and, indeed, this is the last that I shall mention—is the one that stands at the head of the repeals that are set out in the schedule. It attached to the maintenance of the university which was to be converted into the Royal University of Ireland—though it would contain the same constituent colleges—funds which had been produced by the surplus at the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland by the Act of 1869.
Thus the intentions which had been professed in connection with the disestablishment that the revenues should go to the purposes of education—and of education applicable to the whole of the population of Ireland—were carried into effect by that statute. So far as Northern Ireland was affected through the Queen's College of Belfast, as it was then, we are now tidying up the ultimate derivation of that public maintenance of non-sectarian university education in Ireland and now in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, it is not an unworthy history which lies behind the minor adjustment of the law which the House, I am sure, will make in a few moments.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) alluded to my attitude to the future of teacher training colleges in Northern Ireland. I agree with him that it is a tragedy that the Government, who protest that they have so much courage, have abandoned the right attitude to sectarian teacher training in Northern Ireland.
The three teacher training colleges—St. Mary's, St. Joseph's and Stranmillis—should be abolished. Teacher training should be placed properly either at Queen's University Belfast or the new University of Ulster. I hope that something can be done to ensure that teacher training is taken out of the sectarian area and is placed in a nonsectarian university.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I think the hon. Member said that that was my view. I never expressed that view in the debate.

Mr. Kilfedder: I hope that I have made it clear that I merely said that the hon. Member alluded to my attitude. If it is thought that I was trying to suggest that he was critical of the Conservative Government. I withdraw that. Enough Conservative Members are critical of the Government, without adding the name of the hon. Member for Epping Forest.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) rightly referred to the history of university education in Ireland. I also pay tribute to what was done in the past. Queen's University of Belfast is one of the great Queen's colleges which Sir Robert Peel established by his Act of 1845. That Act of Parliament was one of the noblest achievements of Peel's intrusion into Irish affairs. The other was his decision in 1840 to separate the education of Roman Catholic clergy from the university education of Roman Catholic laity. As a consequence, the new Queen's colleges were to be open to students of all denominations, and there was to be no instruction by the colleges in dogmatic religion.
The signal achievement of Queen's University, Belfast, is that, since its foundation, the institution has managed to keep itself free from the virulent taints of sectarianism. It has survived attacks from many quarters, from the early part of the nineteenth century, for instance when Archbishop John McHale led the assualt in 1845 on what he dubbed the godless colleges, to the present.
That Government, unlike others since, were not prepared to compromise on such a vital principle as nondenominational and non-sectarian higher education, and they firmly rejected all the demands made to create a religious divide, including the demand that Roman Catholic students at the Queen's colleges should be educated by Roman Catholic teachers approved by the church even when they were being instructed in history, logic, moral philosophy, anatomy and geology. Thank God that we do not have sectarianism in the university in Northern Ireland.
Ulster and Southern Ireland owe a profound debt of gratitude to those who framed the Irish universities legislation of 1908 and to the men and women of the old Queen's colleges who persuaded the Privy Council in the previous century to grant the Irish universities a radical Royal charter. Queen Victoria's charter has continued to this day, although it will be replaced in due course. It is the rock base of the administration of Queen's University of Belfast.
Because of the charter, and because of the 1908 Act, the arrangements for the internal government of the institution were far in advance of those for British universities. It should be made clear that we led the field in Ireland. Many of the provisions of the charter were not repeated in the articles of government of many Great Britain universities until after the commission of inquiry into student discontent about 12 years ago. That is especially true of the provisions relating to wide academic involvement with the university authorities on important committees dealing with finance.
The old Queen's College, Belfast, when it became Queen's University, never broke faith with its charter or with the far-seeing provisions of the Irish universities legislation of 1908. It owes much to a succession of outstanding vice-chancellors. None was hampered, as are many of their colleagues in Great Britain, by unnecessary restrictions in charter provisions.
I hope that the Government will heed the criticism of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). I share his disquiet. The non-academic staff and students should have been consulted in greater depth and earlier. I feel strongly that it is not sufficient to have only two student representatives on the senate, one the president for the time being of the students' union as an ex-officio member and the other a member of the students' union council to be elected by that council. A university with 6,000 students should have four student representatives. I do not know how many officers there are on the students' representative council, but I see no reason why we should not have the president, the secretary, the treasurer and another officer as ex-officio members of the senate.
In conclusion, I refer to an article published in the "Higher Education Review" some years ago by Professor Moodie and some students and staff of York University. First, it states that:

A university can either try to persuade its students that it is deserving of confidence in the exercise of its traditional authority, or it can take such action as it feels appropriate to enable the individual to identify himself more closely with the processes by which his institution is directed. The second course seems to us to be preferable. It has been increasingly evident that students (like many others) wish to see their views being taken seriously, and that they are no longer willing to believe that these views can accurately and effectively be transmitted by anyone from outside their number … At the heart of current problems of university government, therefore, there lie basic questions about the nature and purpose of authority in universities as well as questions about the procedures by which it is exercised.
The other quotation reads as follows:
authority within a university must be exercised in a manner consistent with its own nature and source. If one accepts the traditional liberal conception of learning as involving criticism, thinking which is open to evidence and argument, and the twin intellectual qualities of freedom and integrity, then it follows that any authority which derives from a person's role in the learning process must not be exercised in arbitrary or despotic ways. Facts may be arbitrary and logic despotic but those who deploy them dare not be. Universities must therefore encourage and not merely permit discussion and criticism of their decisions by others, including the general public and, particularly, their own members …
Understood in the ways we have outlined, the nature and source of authority carry with them important implications for the role of students (and others) in university government.
I believe that just as Queen's University has led the field in the past, the Government should ensure that it will point the way for other universities in the future by provision being made to ensure that the students have a proper, adequate and effective voice in the senate. This can be achieved only if there are four representatives of the students themselves. Who better is there to fulfil that role—and this would be the simplest way—than those in whom the students have reposed their confidence by electing them as the four officers in the students union?

Mr. English: I ask one simple question. The Minister said that any audit would be carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Patten: I inadvertently misled the House. It would be done by the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

Mr. English: That ends my speech.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I hope to speak for a little, though not much, longer than the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). We have had an interesting debate which was greatly aided by the historical perspective given by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) from his considerable erudition and added to by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). Perhaps I may make a slightly more up-to-date contribution.
As one of what I believe are only two graduates of Queen's University at present in the House, I commend it not only in historical terms but also in terms of experience. As one who has enjoyed both the friendliness of a provincial university and the high academic standing of an international institution of academic renown, it may be helpful to put on record the fact that at least one Member of the House can testify to the excellence of the teaching and the facilities of that university.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister could help the House by responding positively to two or three of the


points raised in the debate. The point raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South about making the charter available to Members of the House in advance, before it is finally confirmed, would be of assistance. It would be helpful to couple that with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) about the Chilver committee. I am not expressing a preference when I say that I suppose it is technically possible that the Chilver committee will make a report which in some way sought to combine Queen's University, Belfast, with the new university at Coleraine. If it were to do that, and if that were to find acceptance, this new charter would soon have to be replaced by another and different one. It would be useful for the House to be told by the Minister whether there is any rush to introduce this charter, or whether it can await the report of the Chilver committee.
As someone who was elected to the students' representative council and served on it for a number of years, I welcome the increase in the number of students on the Senate.

Mr. Pendry: One extra student.

Dr. Mawhinney: That is right, but as one who teaches statistics I realise that one extra student is a doubling of the number, or a 100 per cent. increase. The argument is not, however, about an arbitrary number. Four have been offered, and two are on offer. Someone else might make a case for three. What is useful is that these days more recognition is given to the role of students in higher education.
I suppose that I have a vested interest, in that I am still a member of the academic staff of the University of London. Academic staff have a long-term vested interest in the universities at which they teach, inasmuch as they will spend perhaps all of their working lives in that institution, but the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) was right when he said that non-academic staff also have a lifetime contribution to make to these institutions.
It is not my intention to argue numbers with my hon. Friend the Minister, save to say that, not having seen these proposals—just as most other hon. Members have not seen them—I have to take his word for it that the numbers will be about right. If there were a preponderance of people from outside the university over those who make their living at the university, that would not accord with the forward thinking referred to by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde.
Finally, I wish to put one question to my hon. Friend. I accept that he will not be able to answer it this evening, and perhaps he will write to me. He spoke about the tidying up of statutes and the removal of some. I ran into considerable difficulty while at the university. There was a substantial disagreement with the vice-chancellor of the day over the interpretation of one statute which spoke about the university recognising only those religious activities that were under the auspices of the chaplains to the university. That made life difficult for those independent Christian-based organisations—Catholic organisations, Christian Union, Student Christian Movement, and so on—that are recognised in all British universities but which, if they wished to do something more substantial, ran into trouble because of the statute. I hope that the review has taken the opportunity to resolve

that difficulty. This is a matter of detail and, as I said, I do not expect my hon. Friend to have the answer, but perhaps he will write to me at an appropriate time.
I welcome the move to bring up to date the charter of a fine university. It is one of the finest universities that the United Kingdom boasts, and I welcome what my hon. Friend has said this evening.

Mr. John Patten: I thank that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) exemplified the constructive and, in all senses, helpful tone of most of the debate. I am sorry that, as he suggested, I shall be unable to help him tonight on the last point he raised, but I undertake to write to him about it.
This has been an interesting debate in many ways. It is the first time that I have had to apologise to the House and to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), who is no longer in the Chamber. Perhaps I owe the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) an apology for what he may have thought was happening on this side of the House during his speech. He drew attention to the fact that I appeared not to be listening to him while I was engaging in consultations with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. My right hon. Friend was engaged in a most interesting historical discussion. I assure him that 10 years or more as the fellow of a college in Oxford, with the Byzantine machinations of an Oxford common room, taught me to listen in two directions at once, and I was listening precisely to the point he n-lade about Mr. Gladstone.
The right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have raised a point of substance about the availability to the House of the proposed charter in its present form. This is primarily a matter for my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, but I shall certainly draw this sense of unease to my noble Friend's attention and convey to him the request for every possible provision of the charter to be conveyed to right hon. and hon. Members. The right hon. Member also raised a point to which he returns repeatedly when we enact these orders, and that is the use of the terminology "Head of Department" or, from time to time, "the Department". That arises simply from the legislation which governs the order at the moment, which is the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Everything that we are doing and the form of words are consequent upon that Act.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: At least it would be a help if the explanatory memorandum would be translated into actual practice, though I think that the Minister will find that the form of the legislation relates to the 1973 Act, and the translation or transposition into what will actually happen derives from the 1974 Act.

Mr. Patten: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those observations.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and for Peterborough, all in their different ways, mentioned the present position of the Chilver committee, which is presently examining the proper provision of higher education in Northern Ireland. In many ways the Chilver committee echoes what the Lockwood committee was trying to do in the early 1960s when it examined the proper provision for and of higher education in the Province in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The


Chilver committee is attempting to find the best way forward for higher education in the Province in the 1980s and 1990s.
I must explain that the committee is an independent committee. It has yet to present its conclusions. It has presented an interim report, but it is some way, since its formation in December 1978, from presenting its final report. We hope to have sight of that report towards the end of this year. It will then be open for public examination. But I think that it would be wrong for me from this Dispatch Box to seek to anticipate in any way what its final recommendations will be. Least of all, I must tell the hon. Member for Down, North, should I anticipate the Government's reactions to those recommendations when the report is finally published.

Mr. Kilfedder: We know them already.

Mr. Patten: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings about what he terms sectarian education in Northern Ireland. I well remember during an earlier debate that he heartily and heavily attacked me and alleged that I was a supporter of educational apartheid, something I greatly resented then. I do not think that the future of teacher training colleges and other related issues and their effects on religious education can be properly and fully debated until we have seen the Chilver report.
I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest and for Peterborough will also accept that it has taken 10 years to prepare the charter. It does not do much to the university's basic statutes. However, it makes better provision for the financial management of the university. It also brings into play certain amendments to the provisions for membership of the senate. In addition, it repeals various pieces of obsolete or otiose legislation.
It would be a great mistake to delay the introduction of the charter after such a lengthy period of preparation. However, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) feels strongly that there was less than adequate consultation with the trade union and student sides. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that many of the matters that he raised involve the Lord President of the Council and the university. The university has not been specific about naming the trade unions or other bodies that might be fit to be represented on the senate, because it wants the statutes to be durable. It does not wish to list all the different bodies that could have a right to make nominations to the senate. Indeed, that is why the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce has been omitted, although it was included in the earlier statutes.
Although trade unionists may not be named as having the right to be on the senate, they will have many opportunities to serve on it. The academic council nominates six members—four of whom must be professors—to the senate. Several of them will probably be members of the Association of University Teachers. I am sure that the three members of the academic body who are not members of the academic council but who are elected by the non-professional body of the university will include trade union members.

Mr. Pendry: I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. Indeed, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) took it up. Some technical, clerical and ancillary staff are just as much part

of the university as academic staff. They were not consulted, although they should have been. They should have places on the senate.

Mr. Patten: I am sure that the senate and those university authorities responsible will read what the hon. Gentleman has said with interest. Non-academic staff within the university will have the right to two places on the senate. If Her Majesty the Queen grants this charter, the Crown's provision of senate places will increase from four to five. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there will be at least one trade union nomination from amongst those put forward by the Government for membership of the senate. Those nominations may not be made by trade unionists working within the university, but under the old statutes members of the senate have long included trade union members. Indeed, they have contributed greatly to the running of the university.
The hon. Gentleman also felt strongly that the number of members—three—who could be nominated to represent the better equipment fund could be a crooked, back-door way in for industrialists and those on the commercial side of life in the Province, while the trade union side would be somehow excluded.
Members of the committee are actively engaged in exploring ways and means of further fund raising. It is true that at the moment the majority of members of that committee are industrialists and people involved primarily in the commercial and professional life of the Province. I am sure that they would welcome trade union involvement in that fund raising because we know that all bodies such as universities have to depend from time to time on the fund raising activities of voluntary bodies of one sort or another.
The proper interests of trade unions are recognised under these arrangements. Despite what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, the interests of students are equally well represented, because the students not only have a 100 per cent. increase in their representation from one to two on the senate but an increased representation on the libraries board, where they have four members, on the finance committee where they have a member and on the buildings committee where they have a member. I know that the student voice in the university will be heard just as loudly now as it was when my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough was a member of the student representative council in the University of Belfast.

Mr. Pendry: I am sorry to keep interrupting the Minister, but will he address himself to the point I made following his statement about full consultation with the students? Why did the legal quibble have to be ironed out before the students were allowed to make their contribution? When they were allowed to do so, why were they given only three months in which to make their case?

Mr. Patten: Those are surely matters between the university and the student's representative council. They are not matters for Her Majesty's Government in the first instance.
The student body and outside interests are well represented on the potential future senate of the University, which could have up to 51 members—a considerable increase in size over the senate under the old statutes.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Minister said that there would be up to 51 members hi the new senate. Surely it is


disgraceful to allow the students only two representatives. Will he consider that point again? It is important, because we want to ensure that the students are fully identified with the university, because they are the university. If he consults student representatives he will find that they are anxious to have more members. Four is a reasonable number.

Mr. Patten: I know that different bodies in the Province have all had a considerable amount of time to make representations to the University authorities about issues such as this. The full consultation process was gone through and the charter was advertised in the London Gazette and in the Belfast Gazette. It is always difficult to get the right balance between conflicting interests in a body such as the senate of the University of Belfast. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's views to the attention of my noble friend the Lord Elton, whose responsibility this is.
In that sense and in all other senses the charter is good for the Queen's University of Belfast. It has been the subject of 10 years' careful preparation and I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Queen's University of Belfast (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.

ARMED FORCES BILL

Ordered,
That the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill have power to adjourn from place to place.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with technical knowledge either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

European Community (Transport Policy)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Tom Bradley: My purpose in raising this Adjournment debate is to draw attention to the lack of progress towards establishing a common transport policy for the European Economic Community and to restate the vital need to formulate an overall strategy for transport in the interest of the economic well-being of the Community as a whole.
Transport is one of the four areas of activity specifically identified in the Treaty of Rome as forming the "Foundations of the Community". The first annual report of the EEC Commission said, that
transport is a service indispensable for the growth of all productive activity … its historical past, its social and strategic role, the scale of existing and future investment, the advent and rapid expansion of new means of transport involve far-reaching intervention by public authorities".
It went on to indicate that those features made it difficult for the drafters of the treaty to lay down in detail the ways of integrating transport in the Common Market.
But the concept was clear. Part II of the treaty, articles 74 to 84, lays down that the objectives of the treaty shall be
pursued by Member States within the framework of a common transport policy
and specific provision and rules were inserted for dealing with discrimination against the carriers of other member states, transport rates and charges, State intervention and subsidies.
The history of the application of those provisions of the Treaty of Rome is, by common consent, a sorry story and the pursuit of what is called a "small steps" policy for more than 20 years has badly shaken public confidence in the achievement of a common transport policy. Although some success has been achieved in the harmonisation of social provision, the development of common accounting practices for railway undertakings and so on, progress in many more areas requiring positive action has been painfully slow.
A detailed report on the state of progress of the policy, drawn up in early 1979 by the European Parliament's regional policy, planning and transport committee, claimed that
the Council of Ministers has never had a policy of any kind, but has simply shilly-shallied from one file to another.
It was also critical of the Commission which, it said, should not have released the Council from its responsibilities.
At the end of 1979 hopes were raised when the Commission prepared a green paper on
the role of the Community in the Development of Transport Infrastructure
and those hopes were reinforced by the enthusiasm of the then Transport Commissioner, Richard Burke, in his advocacy of the draft regulation on support for projects of Community interest. Interest in this country was stimulated by the green paper as it seemed to some to be a possible source of long-term EEC expenditure which could help to correct the imbalance in the United Kingdom's contribution to the EEC budget and might even attract support for a fixed link across the Channel.
The optimism that shone through the green paper was in such striking contrast to the disappointing and undistinguished record of the Community in transport policy that the Select Committee on Transport of which I am chairman decided to undertake a short inquiry into the infrastructure proposals and their implications for this country. Our conclusions are recorded in the Committee's first report to the 1979–80 Session of Parliament and reflect the uncertainties and doubts that we discovered are involved in trying to define the concept of what is called "Community interest". Other difficulties were encountered which served only to underline the unsatisfactory responses that one receives when seeking to go beyond the legal obligations of the Council. The Committee's experience was rather unrewarding.
In my view, it is essential to press the Council of Ministers for action on transport because of the relative importance of the transport sector to member countries' economies and because I share the conviction that a more coherent approach in this area will bring general benefits to the people of Europe. As usual, it is a question of priorities and the need to ensure a proper distribution of resources.
I have referred to the relative importance of the Community transport sector, which is steadily increasing. That of agriculture has declined. Transport now accounts for 6 per cent. of the Community's gross national product—that is, more than agriculture—for 15 per cent. of total capital investment, and for 40 per cent. of capital investment in the public sector. The share of the Community budget allocated to agriculture is widely regarded as disproportionate and, in the current year, gathers over 70 per cent. of the appropriations. This should be compared with the share allocated to transport amounting to only 0·003 per cent. of the total budget.
All hon. Members, whatever their political affiliations—I remain an unrepentant European—feel that the Common Market is in need of structural reform and the mandate given to the Commission by the Heads of State last year to prepare proposals for budgetary reform have widespread approval. It is essential to see the Community budget reflecting an overall approach to transport policy that takes realistic account of recent economic developments and, in particular, of the energy crisis and environmental considerations, not to mention the interdependence between transport and other vital policy areas.
At a time of economic recession and appalling unemployment, Community assistance for improving transport infrastructure could only contribute to general economic expansion, development and the stimulation of trade. Any reduction in transport barriers, bottlenecks and frontier procedures should create savings and help the process of convergence of member States' economies. It could certainly narrow the gap in living standards between the richer and less-favoured nations of the Community.
I should like to consider certain policy areas. In transport infrastructure, the need for a coherent policy to overcome what are clearly identifiable bottlenecks in the transport of people and, most important, of goods is self-evident. Without the provision of adequate transport links between the centre and the periphery of the Community, the creation of a genuine free market for goods in both directions will be doomed. Moreover, the pursuit of such

a policy should be a positive benefit to the United Kingdom, not only in our dealings with other member States but also in our internal transport networks. Some of the main, identified Community bottlenecks such as the cross-Midlands route from Ireland to the Haven ports or the route from the Midlands to the South Coast ports are important in internal United Kingdom terms as well as in Community terms.
Recent years have seen a continuing deterioration in the financial situation of railway undertakings. Forecasts indicate that with unchanged policies the railways' share of the traffic is likely to continue to fall. There is a great need for a change in emphasis in Community railway policy in this decade. New initiatives and actions have to be taken if present market and financial difficulties in railway operations are to be reversed. I understand that the Commission has examined the situation and will be placing before the Council a paper which examines a list of options and proposals for a new Community railway policy, including a new examination of public service obligations. This is of particular relevance to the future of our own work. I hope that the Secretary of State's response will be based on the desirability of maintaining a full range of transport modes.
The connection between regional policy and transport policy is easy to establish. A fair competition policy is impeded by fiscal and legislative barriers stemming from physical obstructions that must be broken down. The fact that the Community's transport sector accounts for about 18 per cent. of total energy consumption argues for the need for a transport infrastructure that will reduce our dependence on imported energy sources. It hardly needs to be said that an industrial policy could be securely based on Community funding for transport infrastructure with its multiplier effect for steel and other construction sectors.
Surely the time is ripe for a new impetus. Can we expect it? The history of decision making on transport in the Community is depressing. Time and again the Commission, supported by the European Parliament, has tried to tie down the Council of Ministers to a coherent programme of action to implement the transport chapter of the Treaty. Time and again the assembled Transport Ministers shrugged their shoulders and did nothing. In 1962, the Commission submitted an action programme on transport, but it was not adopted by the Council. In 1973, a Commission communication to the Council contained a work programme for 1974–76. The Council merely took note. In 1977, the Commission proposed a further programme of work in transport for 1978–80. Again, it was noted by the Council. Two weeks ago, the Transport Council at last adopted a resolution identifying the main areas of policy on which it would "attempt to make progress", but it merely took notice of the Commission's priority programme and timetable for action.
The number of outstanding Commission proposals for action in transport, which have already been endorsed by the European Parliament and the economic and social committee, now stands at no less than 32. The list includes many matters of considerable significance to the United Kingdom and the EEC transport system as a whole. Apart from the draft regulation on the financing of transport infrastructure projects, it covers a range of proposals relating to the functioning of the transport market, the harmonisation of taxation and social legislation, and relations in transport between the Community and its trading partners.
I understand that the Council of Ministers now delegates responsibility for drafting decisions, not to the Commission—as was the firm intention of the authors of the Treaty—but to a body called the permanent representatives' committee. There is no public or parliamentary control over that group of officials, whose work appears to be wrapped in impenetrable mystery. So an under-staffed Commission submits periodic proposals to meetings of the Council, which are infrequent and ill-equipped to deal with them. Ministers then send the proposals back to the permanent representatives' committee, which has no legal status and no negotiating powers.
European and national parliamentarians have a duty to break that deadlock and improve the system. We are coming up to Britain's Presidency of the Council of Ministers, and a great opportunity exists for an initiative. That may have been provided already by the Dutch, who put forward an idea on infrastructure which concentrates initially on two aspects--frontier crossings, and facilities for combined transport. It is a great deal more limited than the Commission proposal that I mentioned earlier, but it provides the opportunity for an earlier start than otherwise might have been expected.
I understand that the Secretary of State supports the Dutch proposals, and I welcome that. In answer to a written question from me last week, the Secretary of State confirmed that at the meeting of the Council of the Transport Ministers held on 26 March a resolution was adopted identifying the main areas of transport policy in which it would attempt to make some progress. That is not enough. There is no difficulty about describing problem areas; the difficulty lies in getting something done.
The Secretary of State also told me, as part of his written answer, that he was disappointed about the lack of progress towards infrastructure support, on railways policy and on the proposed increase in the Community's multilateral road haulage quota, but he said that he would continue to work for a constructive solution to all those problems. The opportunity to do so lies ahead during our Presidency. It is in our national interests that the opportunity should be seized. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell me tonight that it is the firm purpose of the British Government to endeavour to break the logjam which has obstructed progress in implementing one of the basic principles of the Treaty of Rome, namely, the realisation of the transport infrastructure network matching Community requirements.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, has raised an important topic. I agree with much of what he said. I accept that if the country is to achieve the benefits of the free market which the European Community presents to us it is necessary to remove restrictions on the free movement of goods and passengers within the Community. Considerable economic advantages could flow from any moves in that direction and from any attempt to harmonise arrangements in the Community. There is a great deal of common Community interest in establishing the right transport infrastructure which the Community must, at some time, tackle.
I regret the lack of progress towards a real Community transport policy. I hope to persuade the hon. Gentleman

that the Government share his general aims and his disappointment at the lack of progress. The Government are not contributing to the delay. We hope for more progress and will continue to strive for the achievement of it in any practical way.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that article 3 of the Treaty of Rome lays down guidelines for a common transport policy. Articles 74 to 78 make more detailed, but unfortunately generalised, provisions which, had they been put into effect, would have established common rules for international transport within the Community and common operating conditions for carriers when moving between member States.
The articles are aimed at the elimination of any aids to particular transport industries or parts of transport industries which might discriminate between member countries and distort the transport market.
The aims of the Treaty of Rome when it was signed were for the establishment of a free transport market within the Community, fair competition between modes and between carriers from different member countries, and a free choice of mode and style of transport for the passenger and customer. Britain accepted those aims 'when it entered the European Community. The present Government believe that they are desirable.
The Government favour, and continue to press for, the liberalisation of the transport market within the Community with the steady removal of obstacles to the free movement of our goods and passengers and carriers within the Community. We would certainly support any regime which established fair competition between modes and, carriers and the harmonisation of conditions of competition.
Since the signing of the Treaty another objective has emerged—the possibility of European Community financial support for transport infrastructure. I refer in particular to that which facilitates movement across boundaries—in our case across the Channel—between member States where there is a Community interest in removing bottlenecks and improving the free flow of goods and people.
The objective was established early on and the Commission set up a committee to examine the matter in 1973. A draft regulation was submitted as a result to the Council of Ministers in 1976. The last Transport Commissioner, Commissioner Burke, pressed for progress until his period in office came to an end. The present Government favour in broad principle the establishment of financial support for transport infrastructure within the Community, but progress has been limited. For 24 years not enough progress has been made. Some objectives have been achieved. But the pace of progress has been disappointing. We should like to make more progress in the right direction.
Before we talk ourselves into a deep state of mutual gloom on the topic we must remember that there has been some progress. There is a European transport policy and some achievement. For example, since 1975 the Commission has defined, and the Council of Ministers has agreed, the broad lines of approach towards harmonising relationships between railway undertakings and Governments. The main aim of the policy is greater managerial and financial independence for the railway undertakings in the hope that distortions to the rail market which might obstruct the free movement of goods over boundaries will be removed.
Some progress has been made towards achieving these objectives, but uniformity has by no means been achieved throughout the European Community. There has been some limited progress towards common accounting principles for railways and also towards common methods of costing international rail freight traffic, but in neither of these cases is there yet full harmonisation.
There has been progress also as regards the requirement for members to report fully on their railways every two years and to disclose the full nature of aid they are receiving from the State. Again, comparisons are difficult and limited progress has been made because, although all member States give assistance in one way or another to their railway undertakings, inevitably there is a very wide divergence of practice between member States. It is, therefore, difficult to harmonise arrangements, as would be desirable if we were to establish a Community policy. Common rules have been established for the basis upon which acceptable State aid should be given where it meets the social needs of transport and compensates for what has been described as public service obligations.
The present PSO payment that we make to British Rail is made in accordance with the EEC directive on the nature of the public service obligation payments. There are some current Commission proposals for revising the rules on PSOs, in which the Government are certainly interested, although there is a danger that the present proposals are likely to be over-elaborate and difficult to apply, so the Government will wish to be somewhat critical of the details of the new rules which the Commission intends to apply.
Steps have been taken, therefore, at least to begin to clarify the principles and practice of railway finance within the Community. If further progress can be made, it will enable member States' undertakings to be compared and that might enable us to move towards a more harmonised practice of railway finance and railway movement throughout the Community. So far the achievements are undoubtedly modest in the railways field. We remain interested and will adopt a constructive approach to any proposals that the Commission produces in that field.
As regards road haulage, progress in the European Community on regulating lorry traffic has been a good deal more substantial. As the House knows, the whole European Community now subscribes fully to most of the important social regulations which govern drivers' hours and rest periods. This means that, given the substantial flow of goods carried by various operators from member States all over Europe, the competition between them is established on a reasonably fair basis, with the same road safety obligations resting upon operators in each member State.
The drivers' hours regulations are extremely important road safety measures, which protect other road users against lorries being driven for excessive hours in any one day by a driver. The latest step that this country has taken towards complying with EEC social regulations will be completed when the tachograph becomes compulsory in the United Kingdom next year.
There are also uniform European Community standards regarding heavy vehicle noise and emissions. We have recently been able to reach agreement on a form of Community driving licence, where previous British Governments had been holding up agreement on that

measure, and we also have established common rules on the recognition of certain professional qualifications in the road haulage field.
There is a directive, to which the hon. Member for Leicester, East referred, for the adjustment of national taxation systems, which is concerned to ensure that all vehicles above a certain weight meet at least the marginal cost they impose on road infrastructure. This has been agreed in the Council in principle although, unfortunately, it has not yet been finally implemented. However, this country is certainly going to move in that area of policy in directions which comply with that directive entirely.
In lorry traffic there has, therefore, been considerable harmonisation of conditions of competition, except for the important gap of weights and dimensions, on which there has been disagreement for a number of years. This country has recently produced the Armitage report on weights and dimensions and it is necessary for the House and the country to come to some agreement about dimensions and weights of lorries that suit our own conditions before we can move towards any EEC agreement. Certainly, Sir Arthur Armitage has strongly recommended that we do not go to the present proposals for EEC limits on the axle weight of vehicles, which would be excessive for our roads and cause damage to our bridges.
Nevertheless, once we have established what this country desires, it should be possible then to reach some understanding on size and dimensions, weights and so on, which is acceptable to this country, and also, I suspect, acceptable to most EEC countries—one would hope all—because they are subject to the same environmental pressures and interests as we are but also wish to achieve uniformity of competition and the maximum economic benefit from their road haulage industry.
One area in which insufficient progress has been made is in the free movement of lorry traffic between countries in regard to the carriers from each member State. We still have bilateral agreements with countries governing that, and several countries—particularly France, Germany and Italy—impose strict quotas on the number of British lorries that they will admit carrying our goods into and across their territories. Those quotas are restrictive and, are not adequate for our carriers, and this Government constantly press the other member States of the Community to increase their quota allocation because we believe that the action of some of the European Governments is plainly contrary to the principles of the Community and is a deliberate obstruction to free trade between member States.
The Community has been helpful in establishing a system of multilaterial road haulage quotas, and when British operators are able to obtain those they, like the operators from other member States, are able to make as many trips as they want in one year across the boundaries of member States. But there are only 4,000 such quotas in total, so that this country gets a very small number. That is another area—the liberalisation of the road haulage market—where the British Government would like to see much more progress.
With regard to infrastructure support, the Government are playing a constructive role and see potential advantage in establishing some kind of financial support from the Community for projects of Community interest of the kind contemplated in the draft regulation. I entirely accept the description which the hon. Member gave of the present imbalance between agricultural spending and the rest


within the European budget. He is right in saying that that is particularly unfortunate, given that agriculture accounts for only about 5 per cent. of GNP for the Community as a whole and transport accounts for 6 per cent., whereas the spending of the Community is in quite different proportions.
Before we can make real progress something has to be done to restructure the Community budget as a whole. That is a much wider question, but as long as agriculture continues to dominate the present budget there cannot be substantial European Community funds for other worthwhile industrial purposes of the kind that we are talking about. Given that that large matter can be tackled and some progress made, as the Government would wish, there should be prospects for EEC financial support. We have a number of queries on the regulations and would like to see sea and air transport included as well as the present road and rail proposals. There is obviously need to reach a sensible agreement on what is meant by Community interest. We also want to know the size of the aid concerned and the forms which it will take. Nevertheless, the British Government's position is that we would like to see some progress towards agreement on those matters.
At the Transport Council on 26 March my right hon. Friend supported the very valuable initiative of the Dutch

Presidency which suggested that there should be at least a pilot scheme on which all members could agree and on which some progress could be made. I deeply regret that it was not possible for that to be carried through the Council of Ministers. We shall continue to work as constructively as we can. We feel that the work that has already been done on the bottlenecks report has not been wasted, because we have been able to identify ways in which the road system might be helped, and we have, of course, the Channel link in which we have a great interest, which seems to us to be a reasonable example of the kind of international link of genuine Community interest which might benefit from support.
Having shared the hon. Member's disappointment, I do not think that we should abandon the aims that he set out. The Government have to be careful in this area and look after national interests when considering what comes before the Council of Ministers. We are not among the laggards. We are among those trying to press for progress. Perhaps in the Dutch Presidency and in the British Presidency this year we can at least take some limited steps in the right direction.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock.